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 >> Shaw v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (in adm... [2014] NIIT 6618_09IT (12 November 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2014/6618_09IT.html
Cite as: [2014] NIIT 6618_9IT, [2014] NIIT 6618_09IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 6618/09
CLAIMANT: Shirley-Anne Shaw
RESPONDENT: Nortel Networks UK Ltd (in administration)
DECISION
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £66,200 in respect of that dismissal.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Andrew Stephens.
The respondent was not represented.
REASONS
1. I refer to my decision in Murdock v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (in administration) (case reference no: 6614/09, decision issued on 23 October 2014). Below, any reference to the “Murdock Decision” is a reference to that decision.
2. This Decision should be read in conjunction with the Murdock Decision.
3. This Decision should be read as though the contents of paragraphs 1-9 inclusive of the Murdock Decision were set out immediately below.
The breach of contract claim
4. This decision is concerned only with this claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal. In these proceedings, this claimant also has a pending claim for breach of contract. That is a claim relating to an alleged contractual entitlement to redundancy pay, over and above the statutory redundancy pay entitlement. (That statutory entitlement has of course already been the subject of a successful application to the Department for Employment and Learning). The claimant is not abandoning that contractual redundancy claim. However, the claimant and the administrators are agreed that there is no need for an industrial tribunal adjudication in respect of that claim; instead, the claimant and the administrators expect that the matter can in due course be resolved, between them, during the course of the insolvency process.
The history of this claim
5. This Decision should be read as though paragraphs 13-17 of the Murdock Decision were set out immediately below.
This claim
6. This claimant was one of the Northern Ireland employees of Nortel who were dismissed, ostensibly on the ground of redundancy, in March 2009. The claimant says that she was unfairly dismissed. This is my decision in respect of that unfair dismissal claim.
Liability
7. By email dated 14 July 2014, Ms Amanda Rowe, on behalf of the administrators, confirmed that they do not contest claims made in respect of unfair dismissal, against the respondent, by any Northern Ireland claimants.
8. Because the respondent is not contesting the unfair dismissal claim, I have jurisdiction to hear that claim as an employment judge sitting alone.
9. It is clear that the respondent did not comply with the statutory dismissal procedure. Accordingly, on that ground alone, the dismissal is unfair.
Compensation issues
10. I refer to paragraph 22 of Murdock, which sets out the compensation issues which had to be determined in that case. All of the issues there specified also have to be addressed in the circumstances of this case.
The course of the proceedings
11. For costs reasons, the administrators have decided not to participate in these proceedings.
12. The evidence in this case mainly consisted of the oral testimony of the claimant. During the course of that testimony, she referred to a written schedule of loss (“the Schedule”), which sets out the compensation claimed by her. The amounts set out in the Schedule were subject to changes during the course of this case. The Schedule, as so modified, has provided a useful basis for assessing compensation in this case.
13. Mr Stephens has had the benefit of advice and guidance from Mr Francis Bondoumbou. I have also received written submissions (“Submissions”) which Mr Bondoumbou drafted. I have taken those Submissions into account in deciding this case.
14. At paragraph 26 of Murdock, I refer to the judgment of an employment judge in England, sitting at Reading, in respect of various unfair dismissal claims, which were heard in 2012, and which were brought by ex-employees of Nortel who had been made redundant in Great Britain in 2009. In arriving at my conclusions in this case, I have had regard to the statement of applicable legal principles which was set out in the Reading judgment.
General
15. This Decision should be read as though the contents of paragraphs 28-31 of Murdock were set out immediately below.
Loss
16. Pursuant to Article 157(1) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order (“ERO”), the claimant is clearly entitled to recover in respect of any loss sustained by her up to the date of the hearing, provided that any such loss has been sustained in consequence of the dismissal, and is attributable to the dismissal, and subject also to the potential application of the Polkey principle. (For the Polkey issue, see below).
17. I was satisfied that the extent of this claimant’s recoverable loss of earnings, throughout the relevant period up to the date of this hearing, was £46,265 (subject, however, to any application of the Polkey principle).
18. The claimant was dismissed on 30 March 2009. She was in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance from 1 April 2009 until Christmas 2009. Thereafter, she was employed by various firms, from Christmas 2009 until October 2012, at various salaries, which were however always lower than the net salary which she was receiving from the respondent at the time of her dismissal. From October 2012 until 10 March 2013, the claimant was unemployed. From March 2013 until September 2013, the claimant was employed by RLC UK Ltd, on temporary work, at £422 per week (which was a higher salary than she had enjoyed at the time of her dismissal by the respondent). She was briefly unemployed again in October 2013. She has been employed again, since the end of October 2013, but at a salary of less than £300. I do not regard the claimant’s relatively brief employment by RLC UK Ltd, which was temporary in nature, as having broken the chain of causation, in respect of her dismissal. (See paragraph 6.20-6.25 of Korn and Sethi’s “Employment Tribunal Remedies”, fourth edition). I have no doubt that the difference between the salaries which the claimant earned after the date of dismissal, and the salary which she would have earned if she had not been dismissed, (throughout the period ending on the date of the main hearing of this unfair dismissal claim), is the result of the unfair dismissal. I have no doubt that she had done her best to mitigate her loss. In assessing her past loss, I have taken no account of the loss sustained by her during the 12 weeks after the date of dismissal, because she has already received, from the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”), a sum in respect of notice pay. (The claimant was entitled to 12 weeks’ notice pay). During the period beginning 12 weeks after the date of dismissal and ending on the date of assessment (7 August 2014), the claimant’s net pay, if she had still been employed by Nortel, would have been approximately £105,208. During that period, her earnings, from post-dismissal employments, amounted to £58,943. The balance, between those two sums, is £46,265. To that sum, I have added £350 in respect of loss of statutory rights.
19. The present decision should be read as though paragraphs 35-44 of the Murdock Decision were set out immediately below.
20. In the circumstances of this case, I have calculated the amount of the claimant’s future loss, subject to any application of the Polkey principle, at £5,222. I have arrived at that figure because I have concluded that the claimant’s current rate of relevant loss (the rate of loss currently being sustained in consequence of the dismissal, being loss that is attributable to the dismissal) will continue for a further 12 months, beginning on the date of the unfair dismissal hearing.
21. In arriving at the latter conclusion, I have taken account of what has happened during the lengthy period which has elapsed since the date of dismissal. Secondly, I have taken account of the extent of the economic difficulties which Northern Ireland still finds itself, particularly in respect of the types of jobs for which the claimant is qualified.
22. The aggregate loss sustained by the claimant, consisting of past loss and future loss, is £51,837 (£46,265 + £350 + £5,222).
Polkey?
23. This Decision should be read as though paragraphs 49-56 of Murdock were set out immediately below.
24. Because of the factual circumstances noted in those paragraphs of Murdock, and because of the legal principles set out in those paragraphs, I have concluded in this case that there should be no Polkey deduction from the claimant’s compensation.
An Article 17 uplift?
25. This Decision should be read as though the contents of paragraphs 57-66 of the Murdock Decision were set out immediately below.
26. Against the background set out at paragraphs 57-66 of the Murdock Decision, and having had regard in particular to the Wardle (2) judgment, I have decided that this claimant is entitled to an uplift of 38 per cent pursuant to Article 17 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.
27. That uplift increases the amount of the compensatory award by £19,698.
28. The aggregate of the figures specified in paragraphs 22 and 27 above (£51,837 and £19,698) is £71,535.
Grossing Up?
29. This Decision should be read as though paragraphs 70 and 71 of Murdock were set out immediately below.
30. Prior to any grossing up, the compensatory award in this case exceeds the statutory maximum of £66,200. (See paragraph 29 of the Murdock Decision). In the circumstances of this case, no useful purpose would be served by grossing up. Accordingly, I have not done so.
Summary and overall conclusions
31. I have assessed the claimant’s past losses as amounting to £46,615, including the sum of £350 in respect of loss of statutory rights. (See paragraph 18 above).
32. I have awarded £5,222 in respect of future loss. (See paragraph 20 above).
33. The aggregate of the amounts awarded in respect of past loss and in respect of future loss is £51,837.
34. That figure of £51,837 is not subject to any Polkey reduction.
35. The figure of £51,837 is however subject to a 39 per cent increase, pursuant to Article 17 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. (See paragraph 26 above). That produces a figure of £71,535.
36. However, the latter figure must be reduced to the statutory maximum, which is £66,200.
37. Grossing up would serve no useful purpose, in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I have not grossed up the award.
Recoupment of benefit from awards
38. The Recoupment Regulations apply. Attention is drawn to the notice below, which forms part of this Decision. The prescribed element is £58,918. The prescribed period is the period from 1 April 2009 until 7 November 2014. The amount by which the monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £7,282.
Interest on industrial tribunal awards
39. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 7 August 2014, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: