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 >> Patterson v Stewart Worthington, t/a SW Co... [2013] NIIT 00195_13IT (09 May 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/195_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 00195_13IT, [2013] NIIT 195_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 195/13
CLAIMANT: Wesley Patterson
RESPONDENT: Stewart Worthington, t/a SW Contracts
DECISION
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 £6,030 to the claimant.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondent was debarred from participating in the hearing because he did not present a response within the relevant time-limit.
REASONS
1. In his claim form, the claimant identified the respondent as “SW Contracts”. I regard that reference to SW Contracts as a euphemism for Mr Stewart Worthington, who was the sole proprietor of the unincorporated business which was known as “SW Contracts”.
2. I note that Mr Fred McIlwaine’s industrial tribunal proceedings against Mr Worthington (case reference 342/13) have recently been the subject of an industrial tribunal decision. On the basis of the claimant’s oral testimony in these proceedings, I am satisfied that this claimant’s factual situation was very similar to the factual situation in which Mr McIlwaine found himself.
3. On balance, I am satisfied that this claimant’s employment did not come to an end until 9 November 2012. In arriving at that conclusion, I have paid particular attention to a letter dated 28 November 2012, which has been provided to the claimant by Mr Worthington, even though that letter was not provided to him until quite recently, and was provided long after 28 November 2012.
4. On the basis of the claimant’s oral testimony, which I accept, I am satisfied that the claimant was laid off throughout the period from August 2011 until November 2012.
5. I note that, at paragraph 5.2 of his claim form, the claimant asserted that the “Date when your employment ended or will end …” was “01/08/2011”. However, having listened carefully to the claimant’s testimony in the proceedings, I am sure that he was there referring to the last date on which he actually did any work for Mr Worthington. I note that, at paragraph 7.4 of the claimant’s first form, he stated that he wasn’t formally dismissed until December 2012.
6. In arriving at the foregoing conclusions, I have not lost sight of the fact that the P45 gives the claimant’s “leaving date” as 19 August 2011. (Again, the “leaving date” is, I am sure, a reference to the date on which the claimant last worked for the respondent).
7. I am sure that the claimant lost his job, in November 2012, because the business was closing down on account of Mr Worthington’s economic difficulties.
8. The amount of the redundancy payment awarded takes account of the following:
Actual or deemed number of years’ service: 12.
Age on dismissal date: 58.
Gross weekly pay: £335.01 x 18
Amount received to date: £0
9. I note that, in these proceedings, the only claim which the claimant wishes to make is a claim for redundancy pay, and that that is the only claim which he has in fact made in these proceedings.
10. It appears that the claimant may also be due notice pay from the employer. If and when Mr Worthington becomes bankrupt, the claimant will be able to make an application to the Redundancy Payments Service (“RPS”) in respect of notice pay. If that application is successful, and if the amount paid to the claimant in respect of notice pay by the RPS is acceptable to him, that will be the end of the matter. If, on the other hand, in that situation, the claimant’s application is refused, or if the amount awarded to him is not to his satisfaction, he would then have the right to appeal against the RPS decision to an industrial tribunal.
11. In the meantime, it would not be right or proper for me to express any view as to whether the claimant is actually due notice pay or as to the amount of any notice pay entitlement he may have.
12. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 April 2013, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: