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 >> Harkness v David Harkness [2012] NIIT 00535_12IT (13 June 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/535_12IT.html
Cite as: [2012] NIIT 535_12IT, [2012] NIIT 00535_12IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 535/12
CLAIMANT: Gordon Harkness
RESPONDENT: David Harkness
DECISION
It is declared that the claimant’s claim in respect of a redundancy payment is well-founded and that the claimant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £3,957 from the respondent.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondent was not present or represented.
REASONS
1. In these proceedings, the claimant makes a redundancy payment claim against the respondent.
2. The respondent is his brother.
The liability issues
3. A claimant will not be entitled to a redundancy payment unless all of three issues are resolved in his or her favour. First, the tribunal must be satisfied that the claimant was dismissed. Secondly, the tribunal must conclude that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. Thirdly, the claimant must show that, at the time of the termination of the claimant’s employment, he or she had been employed by the respondent (or, in some circumstances, by the respondent and by an appropriate predecessor employer) for at least two years.
4. In considering whether or not particular dismissal was by reason of redundancy, a tribunal will no doubt take account of the statutory presumption which is provided for in Article 198(2) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”). Paragraph (2) provides as follows:
“For the purposes of [any reference to a tribunal of any question arising as to the right of an employee to a redundancy payment], an employee who has been dismissed by his employer shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been so dismissed by reason of redundancy”.
My conclusions on the liability issues
5. I am satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent, and that he was dismissed by the respondent because the business had ceased to trade. I am satisfied that dismissal because of the closure of the business is dismissal by reason of redundancy. I am satisfied that the claimant had more than two years service with the respondent at the time of his dismissal.
6. Accordingly, all of the liability issues have been resolved in the claimant’s favour.
Compensation: issues
7. In order to establish the amount of any redundancy payment, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters.
8. First, the amount of a redundancy payment is calculated on the basis of the claimant’s gross weekly pay, but subject to a statutory maximum. The statutory maximum is provided for in Article 23 of the 1996 Order. At the time of the termination of the claimant’s employment, the relevant statutory maximum was weekly pay of £400.
9. Secondly, the number of complete years of relevant service has to be calculated.
10. Thirdly, a claimant must be allowed “the appropriate amount” for each of his or her years of relevant service. In the present context, “the appropriate amount” means:
(1) one and a half weeks’ pay for a year of employment in which the employee was at least 41 years of age,
(2) one week’s pay for a year of employment in which he or she was at least 22 years of age, and less than 41 years of age, and
(3) half a week’s pay for each year of employment while he or she was less than 22 years of age.
When twenty years of employment have been reckoned (for the purpose of calculating “the appropriate amount”), no account can be taken of any year of employment earlier than those twenty years.
My conclusions on the compensation issues
11. I was satisfied that the claimant’s gross weekly salary was £161.52, that he was aged 50 at the time his dismissal took effect, and that (at the time of the termination of his employment), he had been employed by the respondent for more than 20 years
12. The relevant years of service of the claimant (as an employee of the respondent) can be categorized as follows:
(1) Nine years of service at a time when he was aged at least 41 years of age.
(2) Eleven years of service when he was more than 22 years of age, and less than 41 years of age.
(3) None of those years of service occurred at a time when he was less than 22 years of age.
13. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,957.
14. That figure has been calculated on the basis of a multiplier of 24.5.
Interest
15. 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: