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 >> Carroll v Adam Armstrong SRJ Leisure Ltd, t/a Captain J... [2013] NIIT 662_13IT (10 July 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/662_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 662_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 662/13
CLAIMANT: Jordan Carroll
RESPONDENTS: 1. Adam Armstrong
2. SRJ Leisure Ltd, t/a Captain Jacks Play Centre
DECISION
(A) None of the claims against SRJ Leisure Ltd is well-founded. Accordingly, all of those claims are dismissed.
(B) The claimant’s claims for wages, holiday pay and notice pay against the first-named respondent, Adam Armstrong (“Mr Armstrong”), are all well-founded.
(C) It is ordered that Mr Armstrong shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,125 in respect of wages (£875 in respect of unpaid wages plus an additional amount of two weeks’ wages).
(D) It is ordered that Mr Armstrong shall pay to the claimant the sum of £75 in respect of holiday pay.
(E) It is ordered that Mr Armstrong shall pay to the claimant the sum of £125 in respect of notice pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr P Buggy
Members: Ms A Hamilton
Mr P Kearns
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondents were debarred from participating in the proceedings, because neither of them had presented a response within the relevant time-limit.
REASONS
1. We announced our Decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, we gave oral reasons for that Decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2. On the basis of the evidence of the claimant, and in light of the documents which we saw, we concluded that, at all material times, the claimant was employed by Mr Armstrong, as distinct from being employed by SRJ Leisure Ltd. The award in respect of notice pay is based on net pay.
3. Article 33 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”) imposes an obligation upon employers to provide an employee with a statement of employment particulars. The deadline for compliance with that obligation is two months after the beginning of the employment. In this instance, the employment did not last for much longer than about 10 weeks.
4. Article 27 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (“the 2003 Order”) makes provision in respect of breaches of Article 33 of the 1996 Order. If an employer fails to comply with the Article 33 obligation, an industrial tribunal, in the context of a wages claim, must, as a general rule, make an award of “the minimum amount” as part of any wages award. The duty to award that “minimum amount” does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances which would make such an increase unjust or inequitable. In the context of Article 27, “the minimum amount” is two weeks’ pay.
5. We are satisfied that there is nothing about the circumstances of the present case which would make an Article 27 supplement (to the amount which would otherwise be awarded in respect of wages) unjust or inequitable. Accordingly, we have augmented the wages award, which we would otherwise have awarded, by an additional amount of £250 (two week’s pay).
6. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 26 June 2013, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: