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!
 |
[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 McAloon Construction Ltd [2004] NIIT 162_04 (12 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/162_04.html Cite as: [2004] NIIT 162_04, [2004] NIIT 162_4 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 162/04
APPLICANT: Bernard Samuel Shaw
RESPONDENT: McAloon Construction Ltd
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-
(i) the application to the tribunal in respect of a complaint of unfair dismissal be dismissed; and
(ii) the applicant's complaints to the tribunal in respect of unauthorised deductions from his wages, and in respect of an alleged breach of his contract of employment by the respondent company, also be dismissed.
Appearances:
The applicant did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.
The respondent was represented by Ms N White, one of its Directors.
| 2. | (i) | The applicant, by an originating application presented to the Office of the Tribunals on 16 January 2004, alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent company, that unauthorised deductions had been made from his wages, and that he had not received any notice pay. |
| (ii) | The applicant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. Notice of Hearing had been sent to him on 1 October 2004. The tribunal did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing, but before disposing of the matter it has had regard to the contents of the originating application. |
|
| (iii) | In determining the matter the tribunal also heard evidence from Ms Nuala White, a Director of the respondent company. It found her to be an honest witness. | |
| (iv) | It finds the facts set out in Paragraph 3. below proved to its satisfaction on the balance of probabilities. | |
| 3. | (i) | The applicant worked as a Labourer for the respondent company from 18 November 2003 to 19 December 2003, a period of around one month. It is clear, even on the face of his originating application, that he does not have the necessary period of continuous employment to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. There is no suggestion in his originating application that he was dismissed for the doing of any protected act, which would entitle him to bring proceedings without having been employed for the requisite period of one year. In view of his lack of continuity of employment, the tribunal dismisses his complaint of unfair dismissal. |
| (ii) | As far as his complaints in respect of unauthorised deductions from his wages and alleged failure to pay notice pay are concerned, we dismiss these complaints also. We are satisfied from the evidence of Ms White, which is supported by documentary evidence, that there are no outstanding sums owing to the applicant from the respondent company in respect of either wages or notice pay. |
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 12 November 2004, Enniskillen
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
