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 >> Kilpatrick v Kilpatrick (Other Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal) [2018] NIIT 09226_17IT (16 April 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2018/09226_17IT.html
Cite as: [2018] NIIT 9226_17IT, [2018] NIIT 09226_17IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 9226/17
CLAIMANT: Alan Kilpatrick
RESPONDENT: Mono Aerospace Ltd
DECISION
(A) The claimant's claim in respect of wages is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,650 in respect of wages.
(B) The claimant's claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £4,500 in respect of notice pay.
(C) The claimant's contract claim in respect of personal expenses is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £543 in respect of those personal expenses.
(D) The claimant's contract claim in respect of office expenses is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,396 in respect of office expenses which the claimant paid for.
(E) The claimant's claim in respect of unfair dismissal is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £21,105 as compensation in respect of unfair dismissal.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondent was not entitled to participate in this hearing, because the time limit for presenting a response had expired, and the respondent had not presented any response.
REASONS
1. I announced my decisions at the end of the hearing. At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for those decisions.
2. As I explained during this hearing, I was somewhat hesitant in deciding to make an award to the claimant in respect of office expenses which he had paid for. However, I note that the 1994 Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Northern Ireland) Order can apply to a contract which is connected with a contract of employment, and I take due account of the fact that that particular contract claim (like all the other claims) has not been the subject of any response from the respondent.
3. The award in respect of her unfair dismissal compensation consists of a basic award of £2,000 and a compensatory award of £19,105.
4. That compensatory award is made up as follows:
£13,155 for the period up to 1 February 2018
£ 1,400 for the month of February and (until 26 March) March 2018
£ 4,200 in respect of the period from 26 March 2018 onwards
£ 350 for loss of statutory rights.
5. The Recoupment Regulations apply. Attention is drawn to the notice below which forms part of the decision of the tribunal.
(1) The amount of the monetary award in respect of unfair dismissal is £21,105.
(2) The prescribed element is £14,500.
(3) The prescribed period is the period from 12 September 2017 until
26 March 2018.
(4) The amount by which the unfair dismissal monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £6,605.
6. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 26 March 2018, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: