Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Letterese v The River House Inn Desmond Graham [2012] NIIT 01326_12IT (24 January 0 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/1326_12IT.html
Cite as: [2012] NIIT 01326_12IT, [2012] NIIT 1326_12IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1326/12
CLAIMANT: Marco Letterese
RESPONDENTS: 1. The River House Inn
2. Desmond Graham
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the second-named respondent, who trades under the name of the first-named respondent, pay to the claimant a sum of £200.00 unpaid wages.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting alone): Mr S M P Cross
Appearances:
Neither the claimant nor the respondents appeared or were represented.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This claim for unpaid wages was listed before me on 3 October 2012. In the absence of the claimant and the respondents and under the authority vested in me by Rule 27, of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, I examined the written submissions of the claimant. These were contained in his claim form to the tribunal and in an email which he sent to the tribunal on 24 September 2012. In this email the claimant explained that he would not be able to attend the tribunal hearing on 3 October, due to work commitments. He then proceeded to explain the basis of his case.
2. The claimant was employed by the second-named respondent who traded under the name of the first respondent, The River House Inn. The employment commenced on 4 July 2012 and lasted for only 3 days ending on 6 July. The reason for this short term of employment was that the claimant, who was employed as a chef in the respondent’s inn, found that the condition of the kitchen was unfit for purpose, being in a filthy state and full of rotting food and unclean ovens and fridges. The condition was so bad that the claimant wrote to the Environmental Health Officer in Lisburn, to put him on notice of the situation.
3. The claimant had, before his employment commenced, agreed a cleaning schedule for the kitchen to allow the claimant to start cooking in the kitchen for the reopening of the inn. The respondent failed to comply with this arrangement and consequently, the claimant when he started work on 4 July, spent 3 days endeavouring to clean the premises himself. He felt however, that despite his efforts the kitchen was not fit to serve food to the public and in consequence he tendered his resignation. He asked to be paid for his work during the 3 days that the employment took place but the respondent refused to pay him.
4. The claimant had been employed as a chef at a wage of £450.00 per week for a 45 hour week. He stated to the tribunal, in his email, that he had worked 20 hours on those 3 days.
DECISION
5. Despite the fact that the claimant did not appear at the hearing, I am satisfied from his lengthy written submission that he is entitled to be paid for the hours that he worked for the respondent. The respondent failed to file any response to the claim. Accordingly I find that the claimant is entitled to payment by the second-named respondent of the sum of £200.00, being unpaid wages under his contract of employment and I order accordingly.
6. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 3 October 2012, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: