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 >> Barr v Building and Tanks Ltd [2012] NIIT 00463_12IT (11 July 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/463_12IT.html
Cite as: [2012] NIIT 463_12IT, [2012] NIIT 00463_12IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 463/12
CLAIMANT: Derek Scott Barr
RESPONDENT: Building and Tanks Ltd
DECISION
(A) The claimant’s holiday pay claim is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £417 in respect of holiday pay.
(B) The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,884 in respect of notice pay.
(C) The claimant’s redundancy pay claim against the respondent is well-founded and it is declared that the respondent is liable to make a redundancy payment of £9,800 to the claimant.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondents were represented by Mr Lucas Stravri.
REASONS
1. At the end of the hearing, I
told the claimant that I was concerned about the fact that, after he had been
dismissed by the respondent, he has subsequently been
re-employed by them. I told him that I thought it would be necessary for me to
check the legal position in relation to re-employment. I told him that
(subject to satisfying myself that re-employment, in the circumstances of this
case, did not deprive the claimant of his entitlement to a redundancy payment),
I would award him the sums specified above, for reasons which I gave during the
hearing.
2. On the basis of the evidence which was presented to me during the hearing, I am satisfied that the claimant did not receive an offer of re-engagement prior to the employment-termination which is his cause of action, in respect of redundancy, in these proceedings. I am satisfied that the claimant was not re-employed by the respondent at any time prior to the expiration of four weeks after the relevant termination of employment.
3. Because of the matters
specified in the last preceding paragraph above, the
re-employment of the claimant, in the circumstances of this case, does not
deprive him of a redundancy payment.
4. The issues addressed in the last two paragraphs above are the subject of commentary in “Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law”, at paragraph 1353 of Division E, which summarizes the position, in the following terms:
“(1) If the employee’s contract of employment is renewed either immediately or within four weeks of the dismissal, then the dismissal is deemed never to have happened. And if there is no dismissal, there is no right to a redundancy payment …
(2) If the employee is re-engaged under a new contract of employment … either immediately or within four weeks of the dismissal then, provided that the offer of a new contract was made before the old contract was terminated, the dismissal is again deemed never to have happened. And if there is no dismissal, there is no right to a redundancy payment …”
5. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 22 June 2012, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: