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 >> Boyd v Department for Employment and ... [2013] NIIT 01162_13IT (03 October 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/1162_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 01162_13IT, [2013] NIIT 1162_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1162/13
CLAIMANT: David Boyd
RESPONDENT: Department for Employment and Learning
DECISION
(A) Pursuant to Article 205 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the Order”), I determine that Huntsman is not liable to pay to the claimant any sum by way of redundancy payment.
(B) I also dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of the Department (in the Department’s role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain other employment debts) to make any other payment to him.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The Department was represented by Mr P Curran.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for my decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2. The claimant has worked in a bar at Castle Street, Newtownards for several years. Until May 2012, he was employed either by The Huntsman Inn Ltd or by The Huntsman (Newtownards) Ltd. (That company, or those companies, is/are referred to simply as “Huntsman” in this Decision). In May 2012, Huntsman ceased trading at the Castle Street address. Huntsman then purported to dismiss the claimant. Another company (Open Space Inns Ltd), very soon afterwards purported to offer the claimant new employment in the bar.
3. Arising from that situation, the claimant made applications to the Redundancy Payments Service (of the Department for Employment and Learning) for payments in respect of holiday pay and in respect of redundancy pay. Those applications were refused by the Department. This was a hearing in respect of the claimant’s appeals against those refusals.
4. The alleged redundancy occurred in May 2012. The claimant did not make any written claim to Huntsman in respect of redundancy at any time. These proceedings were presented only in mid-June 2013. The Department’s refusal to make any payment to the claimant in respect of holiday pay occurred in February of this year. However, as already noted, these industrial tribunal proceedings began only in mid-June 2013. Accordingly, I have dismissed those appeals because of time-limit issues.
5. I have not received evidence or listened to comprehensive arguments, on the question of whether or not a “TUPE transfer” (in the sense in which that term is usually used in the context of transfer of undertakings law) has occurred in this case. However, on the basis of the limited evidence and arguments available to me, it seems to me that there is a high probability that: (1) There was a TUPE transfer, from Huntsman to Open Space Inns Ltd, in May 2012. (2) The claimant was assigned, at the relevant time, to the transferred entity.
6. If there was indeed a transfer under TUPE, of an entity to which the claimant was assigned at the relevant time, these appeals would have failed even if the redundancy pay claim and the appeal had been made in a timely fashion.
7. I am satisfied that the proper title of the respondent to these appeals is the Department for Employment and Learning and I have altered the title of these proceedings accordingly.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 September 2013, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: