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 >> Sweeney v Department for Employment and ... [2013] NIIT 684_13IT (16 August 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/684_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 684_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 684/13
CLAIMANT: Anne Theresa Sweeney
RESPONDENT: Department for Employment and Learning
DECISION
Pursuant to Article 205 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, it is determined that McGurk and Moore Ltd is liable to make a redundancy payment of £1,135 to the claimant and that that sum is payable to the claimant by the Department for Employment and Learning, in accordance with Article 203 of the Order, in relation to that redundancy payment.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by a former work colleague, Mr Kevin Barrett.
The Department was represented by Mr Neil Cruikshanks.
REASONS
1. The claimant was employed for many years by a business operating out of premises at the Springtown Industrial Estate, Derry/Londonderry.
2. In October 2011, the claimant was dismissed from her employment in that business, by reason of redundancy.
3.
Mr Columba McGurk promised to pay
her redundancy money. He did subsequently make some payments to her. However,
he did not pay all of her entitlement. Accordingly, the claimant has brought
industrial tribunal proceedings against
Mr McGurk, and others, in respect of that redundancy payment.
4. Subsequently, she made an application to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”), in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of redundancy pay.
5. The Department refused the claimant’s application. This is my Decision in respect of her appeal against that refusal.
6. During the course of this appeal hearing, Mr Cruikshanks made it clear that the Department was not asserting that the redundancy claim was statute-barred.
7. There had been an issue as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the end of her period of employment in the relevant business. (Was she employed at that time by Mr McGurk personally, by McGurk and Moore Contracts Ltd, or by McGurk and Moore Ltd?) Ultimately, the two parties to this appeal were agreed that McGurk and Moore Ltd was the claimant’s employer at the end of her period of employment in the relevant business. I have decided that McGurk and Moore Ltd is the proper, liable, employer, in light of the views expressed by the parties, and in light of the evidence which was made available to me. The title of the proceedings has been amended accordingly.
8. There was an issue between the parties as to the precise duration of the claimant’s service in the business. However, that issue (as Mr Cruikshanks recognised) did not involve any very lengthy period and would not have any practical implication in relation to the amount of redundancy pay due to the claimant. Accordingly, I do not need to adjudicate on that issue.
9. The claimant told me that she was being paid “net” wages of £310 weekly at the time of the termination of her employment. However, no documentation was available to support that contention. That contention was out of line with documentation which the Department made available, in the form of a HMRC contributions record.
10. I made it clear that, if I was being asked to decide this appeal on the basis of a contention that the claimant was in receipt of net pay of £310 per week (rather than on the basis of an assumption that she was being paid gross pay of £270 per week), I would expect to receive oral testimony from those who were involved in the processing of the claimant’s wages.
11. During the course of this hearing, the claimant made it clear to me that she was keen that the proceedings would come to an end speedily.
12. The parties to this appeal were agreed that, if the claimant’s weekly gross wages were to be calculated, for the purpose of determining the amount of redundancy pay, on the basis of gross pay of £270 per week, she is entitled to redundancy pay (after allowance was made for the amounts already paid to her by Mr McGurk) of £1,135.
13. I have decided that the figure of £1,135 is the amount of McGurk and Moore Ltd’s redundancy liability, in light of subsequent correspondence which has been received from the claimant.
14. In essence, in that subsequent correspondence, the claimant has stated that she wishes me to calculate the amount of redundancy pay entitlement on the basis of the amount indicated in the HMRC contributions record.
15. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 3 July 2013 and 1 August 2013, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: