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 >> Fulton v City Link Ltd (In Administrati...Department for the Economy [2016] NIIT 00422_16IT (24 May 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2016/00422_16IT.html
Cite as: [2016] NIIT 00422_16IT, [2016] NIIT 422_16IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 422/16
CLAIMANT: Mervyn Fulton
RESPONDENTS: 1. City Link Ltd (In Administration)
2. Department for the Economy
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that:
(A) The respondent Department ("the Department") ought to make a payment to the claimant under Article 227 of the Employment Rights Order 1996 ("ERO") in respect of remuneration under the protective award which was made against City Link Ltd (In Administration) on 30 October 2015.
(B) In the unlikely event of the claimant and the Department not agreeing on the amount which is due to the claimant pursuant to the above declaration, a remedies hearing will be arranged pursuant to Article 233 of ERO.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.
The Department was not present or represented.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the hearing. At the same time I gave oral reasons for that decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2. In this litigation, this claimant makes two entirely separate claims: (1) He makes what is in effect a claim for debt against City Link Ltd ("City Link") pursuant to Article 220 of ERO. (2) He appeals against the refusal of the Department to make a payment to him in respect of the remuneration which he says is due to him pursuant to the protective award which was made against City Link on 30 October 2015.
3. On 20 May 2016, a main hearing was held in this case, but only in respect of the appeal.
4. The background to this appeal is that the Department accepts that, pursuant to the relevant statutory guarantee, everybody who was personally within the scope of the relevant protective award is, as a general rule, entitled to payment in respect of part of that protective award.
5. In this case, the Department declined to make a payment to the claimant in the absence of any express judicial confirmation that this particular individual was within the scope of the relevant protective award.
6. I am satisfied that this claimant was within the scope of the relevant protective award.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 20 May 2016, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: