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 >> Haslam v Rooster NI Ltd [2012] NIIT 00452_12IT (06 June 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/452_12IT.html
Cite as: [2012] NIIT 00452_12IT, [2012] NIIT 452_12IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 452/12
CLAIMANT: Stuart Haslam
RESPONDENT: Rooster NI Ltd
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is as follows:-
(i) it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claims in respect of breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages within the three month time-limit, but they were presented within a further period that the tribunal considers reasonable;
(ii) it is ordered that the respondent company do pay to the claimant the sum of £1,000.43 in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages; and
(iii) it is further ordered that the respondent company do pay to the claimant the sum of £3,020.81 in respect of sums owing to him as a result of the latter’s breach of the contract of employment.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent company was not represented.
1. At the outset of the proceedings I dismissed both Mr Colin Rodgers, the second-named respondent, and Colette Rodgers, the third-named respondent, as parties. The remaining respondent, a limited liability company, was the claimant’s employer and was therefore the only proper respondent to the proceedings.
2. The claim was out of time. However, I am satisfied that the claimant was misled as to time-limits, and I extend time as set out above.
3. Although the respondent company was not represented at the hearing, I took into account, in determining this matter, the contents of its response and correspondence written on its behalf. According to the respondent company, the extent of its indebtedness to the claimant is merely £317.74, being the balance of his pay for April 2011.
4. However, I am satisfied, from the otherwise uncontradicted evidence of the claimant and from documentary evidence submitted by him, that he is in fact owed £1,000.43 in respect of unlawful deductions from his wages (not just for April 2011, but also for a week in May 2011).
There are also sums due to him in respect of notice pay (£432.69), unpaid holiday pay of £2,423.12, and £165.00 in respect of various expenses, a total of £3,020.81.
5. I therefore order:-
(i) that the respondent company pay to the claimant the sum of £1,000.43 in respect of unauthorised deductions from his wages; and
(ii) that it pay to the claimant the sum of £3,020.81 in respect of sums owing as a result of the breach of his contract of employment.
6. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 30 May 2012, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: