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 >> Watterson v Early Years Day Nursery (Cooks... [2013] NIIT 00633_13IT (30 August 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/633_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 633_13IT, [2013] NIIT 00633_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 633/13
CLAIMANT: Florence Watterson
RESPONDENT: Early Years Day Nursery (Cookstown) Ltd
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deductions from wages is upheld and the respondent is ordered to pay her the sum of £978.32.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Ms P Sheils
Members: Mr N Jones
Mr J P Magennis
Appearances:
The claimant appeared and represented herself.
The respondent appeared and was represented by Ms Amanda Ferguson.
THE CLAIM
1. The claimant’s claim was for unlawful deductions from her wages in relation to deductions made in relation to training courses undertaken by her and in relation to payment for damages to the company car.
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT RESPONSE
2. The respondent stated that she, Ms Ferguson, had contacted the Office on 10 June 2013 enquiring about the case as she stated that she had not heard anything since she had filed the response on-line on 3 May 2013. The respondent was advised that the Office had not received any response and that the case was listed for hearing on 12 June 2013.
3. The respondent indicated to the Office that she had not received a Notice of Hearing and had not known that the response had not been received by the Office. The respondent agreed to fax a copy of said response to the Office. She told the Office staff that the address held by the Office, namely 17 Lisboy Road, Stewartstown, Co Tyrone, BT71 5LP, was a personal address she no longer used.
4. The respondent subsequently faxed a letter to the Office advising that the response comprised too many documents to be faxed and applied for an extension of time to facilitate the lodging of the response.
5. The Office contacted Miss Ferguson and advised her that the case remained in the list for 12 June. The respondent was advised to bring the response form and all other supporting documentation with her to the hearing. The respondent was advised that she would have to make her application for an extension of time to present her response to the Chairman at the hearing of the case.
6. At hearing, the respondent stated that she had received the claim form from the Office of the Industrial Tribunals, undercover of letter of 5 April 2013 addressed to her and posted to 17 Lisboy Road, Stewartstown, Co Tyrone, BT71 5LP. The respondent also confirmed that this was her address and that she was still living there.
7. On receipt of the claim form the respondent stated that she had contacted her Human Resource Consultant, Ms Kelly who had advised her to contact her insurance company and DAS. On receipt of a number confirming that she had sufficient insurance cover she then was given the name of a solicitor in Belfast, funded by the insurance company, to deal with her case.
8. The respondent confirmed that she been made aware of the fact that the response form was due in on or before 3 May 2013. At the beginning of May, the respondent contacted the solicitor appointed to deal with her case. The respondent stated that the solicitor advised her to complete the form herself on-line.
The respondent had no correspondence from Ms Kelly nor the solicitors to confirm that any of these steps had been taken.
9. The
respondent stated that she had sat with the manager and completed the form
on-line. She stated that she had some difficulties in getting confirmation
that the form had been submitted properly and in fact stated that she had
pressed the submit button at least 10 times. However the respondent confirmed
that she did not contact the Office at any stage to confirm that the response
had been safely received.
10. The respondent had a copy of a handwritten response with her at hearing. She stated that it was the contents of this that she had submitted to the on-line response form. The respondent confirmed that she had not sent the hand written hard copy in addition to the on-line form. She also stated that she had not been able to make a copy of the typed version she had submitted on line.
11. The respondent stated that she had only become aware that the hearing was listed for 12 June when she contacted the Office on Monday, 10 June, and was told of the date at that stage. The respondent stated that she had not received a Notice of Hearing and that her telephone call to the Office was coincidental with the fact that the case was listed for hearing two days later.
Decision on application to extend time
12. The Tribunal concluded that in the circumstances the respondent’s application for an extension of time should be refused. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had opportunity to produce evidence for this hearing to demonstrate the steps she had taken in response to the claim form but that no such evidence had been brought.
13. The Tribunal noted that the respondent could have taken steps to ensure the safe delivery of the response form by ringing the Office to check its safe arrival. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent gave no satisfactory explanation why the letter of 5 April addressed to Lisboy Road, Stewartstown, Co Tyrone, was safely received by her but a subsequent letter of 12 April to the same address had not. The Tribunal noted that the respondent gave no explanation as to why she had told the Office on 10 June that the Office was holding a personal address for her she no longer used.
The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s evidence that her telephone call to the Office on 10 June 2013 and her discovery of the date of the hearing was merely coincidental.
Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that the respondent’s application to extend the time limit for presenting a response was refused and that the respondent could take no further part in these proceedings.
14. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant to the effect that she had been employed by Early Years Day Nursery (Cookstown) Ltd between June 2008 and December 2012. The claimant was initially employed as a supervisor but was appointed Deputy Manager in August 2012. The claimant had no contract of employment in relation to that post.
15. The claimant resigned on 31 January 2013. The claimant attended the respondent’s premises and was given her P45, her payslips, a letter and a photocopy of a cheque in the sum of £848.32.
16. The claimant was advised that a deduction of £130.00 had been made from her wages to pay for training courses undertaken by the claimant. In the letter given to her on the same date, the claimant was advised that the respondent was withholding the payment of £848.32 to pay for damages caused by the claimant to the company vehicle.
The claimant stated that she had not been told that she would have to pay for her training courses nor was she asked for payment for these. She stated that she had not given any permission for either of these amounts to be deducted from her wages.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant’s claim was for unlawful deductions from her wages in relation to the deductions made in relation to training courses undertaken by her and in relation to payment for damages to the company car is upheld.
The Tribunal orders the respondent to pay the claimant the sum of £978.32 being £624.96 for wages and £353.36 for outstanding holiday pay.
17. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 12 June 2013, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: