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 >> Dummigan and others v McCrory Scaffolding Contractor... [2013] NIIT 00360_13IT (16 October 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/360_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 00360_13IT, [2013] NIIT 360_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 360/13 and Others
CLAIMANTS: Justin Dummigan and Others
RESPONDENT: McCrory Scaffolding Contractors
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The unanimous decision of the tribunal, in each of these consolidated cases, is that the Decision of the tribunal dated 1 August 2013 should be amended by adding the following at the end:
“(F) The protected period began on 28 September 2012”.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr P Buggy
Members: Mr E Grant
Mr E Miller
Appearances:
The claimants were represented by Mr John O’Neill, Solicitor, of Thomson McClure Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr Teddy Martin.
REASONS
1. These proceedings were the subject of a main decision dated 1 August 2013 (“the main Decision”). The main Decision was issued under the title: “Justin Dummigan and Others v McCrory Scaffolding Contractors (in company voluntary arrangement)”. The main Decision applies to the protective award complaints of all of the claimants who are listed in that Decision.
2. On 17 September 2013, Mr O’Neill, as solicitor for the claimants, wrote to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals, asking that the Decision should be amended so as to include an explicit reference to the protected period. That email has been treated as an application for a review of the Decision, and an application for extension of the time-limit within which to seek such a review.
3. The respondent is content that the Decision should be amended so as to include an explicit statement that the protected period began on 28 September 2012. That also is what the claimants are now asking for. The parties have entered into a written agreement, dated 30 September 2013, whereby they have agreed that the tribunal should modify the Decision by adding the following, as paragraph (F):
“The protected period began on 28 September 2012”.
4. Rule 28 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure provides that, if the parties agree in writing upon the terms of any Decision, a tribunal may:
“… if ... it thinks fit, makes such … decision”.
5. Having considered the factual and legal context of this case, we have exercised our discretion to make a review Decision, and to make an extension of time decision, both of which accord with the terms of the parties’ agreement of 30 September.
Chairman:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: