Jack v Royal Court Hotel [2004] NIIT 1195_03 (18 March 2004)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Jack v Royal Court Hotel [2004] NIIT 1195_03 (18 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/1195_03.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 1195_03, [2004] NIIT 1195_3

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 1195/03

    APPLICANT: William Jack

    RESPONDENT: Royal Court Hotel

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant did not suffer an unlawful deduction of wages, nor was he paid an hourly rate below the National Minimum Wage. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's unfair dismissal complaint because he was not employed for one year.

    Appearances:

    The applicant did not appear nor was he represented.

    The respondent was represented by Mr Howard, Peninsula Business Services.

  1. The applicant did not appear, nor was he represented at the time and place listed for hearing. The tribunal decided to dispose of the application in the absence of the applicant pursuant to Rule 9(3) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

  2. The issues for the tribunal are:

    3. (i) Did the applicant suffer unlawful deductions of wages;
    (ii) was the applicant paid the National Minimum Wage; and
    (iii) was the applicant unfairly dismissed.

  3. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms O'Kane, the owner of the respondent hotel. Having heard that evidence, the tribunal finds the following facts proved on a balance of probabilities:-

    4. (a) The applicant commenced employment on 23 March 2003 on a four week trial period. In week ending 30 March he worked 54½ hours and was paid the national minimum wage applicable at that time which was £4.20 per hour. His net pay was £188.59.

    (b) In week commencing 6 April 2003 the applicant did not turn up for work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday as he was required to do. The respondent was unable to make contact with him.

    (c) On Thursday, the applicant requested that he be given another chance with the respondent. The respondent agreed to do so and asked the applicant to work on Saturday. The applicant worked ten hours and was paid £42 without deductions.

    (d) The applicant did not return to the respondent's premises to work after Saturday 7 April 2003.

    (e) Some time later the respondent received a letter from a firm of solicitors acting on the applicant's behalf. The respondent checked whether the applicant had received all wages due to the applicant, and concluded that £5.70 was outstanding. The respondent forwarded a cheque for that amount to the solicitors.

  4. The tribunal concludes that:-

    5. (1) The National Minimum Wage of £4.20 which was the applicable rate at that time was paid to the applicant.

    (2) The applicant was paid all wages due under his contract.

    (3) The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's unfair dismissal claim because he was only employed for two weeks and therefore did not have the requisite one year's service.

  5. The application is therefore dismissed.

    6. Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 18 March 2004, Limavady

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/1195_03.html