Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF:    3/15

 

 

 

CLAIMANT:                      Peter David Lee Wright

 

 

RESPONDENTS:              1. McKeown Cleaning Services Ltd (in liquidation)

 

                                        2. Department for Employment and Learning

                                       

 

 

DECISION

 

(A)     The claimant’s “appeal” pursuant to Article 205 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“ERO”), against the Department’s decision in respect of the alleged liability of the first-named respondent to make a redundancy payment to the claimant, is unsuccessful: I am not satisfied that the first-named respondent has any relevant liability to the claimant in respect of redundancy pay.

 

(B)     The claimant’s appeals under Article 233 of ERO are dismissed. 

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

 

Employment Judge (sitting alone):      Employment Judge Buggy

 

 

Appearances:

 

The claimant was not present or represented.

 

The respondent Department was represented by Mr Peter Curran.

 

 

 

REASONS

 

1.       In these proceedings, the claimant has made claims against the first-named respondent, his former employer.  In these proceedings, he also makes what amount to “appeals”, against decisions by the respondent Department (“the Department”) refusing applications which the claimant had made to the Department in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain employment debts.

 

2.       I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I announced my reasons for that decision.

 

 

3.       What follows is by way of summary only. 

 

4.       In relation to both of these appeals, the onus of proof was on the claimant.  He has failed to prove that he was dismissed (as distinct from being transferred pursuant to TUPE/pursuant to a Service Provision Change), or that the first-named respondent was liable to him in respect of wages arrears or in respect of holiday pay.  In this case, there has been a real issue as to whether or not there was a TUPE transfer, or a Service Provision Change transfer, of the claimant’s employment (as distinct from there being a dismissal, of the claimant, in the absence of any such transfer).  I note that the claimant’s current employer accepts that there has been a relevant transfer.

 

5.       As part of his Article 233 appeal, the claimant made claims in respect of a relatively small amount of arrears of pay and a relatively small amount of holiday pay.  Apart from the issue in respect of a relevant transfer, there are also difficulties with that aspect of the claimant’s appeal, in light of the contention of the Department that any relevant wages/holiday pay debts were incurred at a time when the employer was already in Voluntary Arrangement.  In that connection, I had invited the claimant to look at Wiener v Department for Employment and Learning [2013] NIIT 01408/12IT.  (A copy of that Decision was provided to the claimant).

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:       

 

 

Date and place of hearing:         21 April 2015, Belfast.     

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: