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 >> Doyle v J F Little Electrical [2010] NIIT 06579_09IT (04 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/06579_09IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 6579_9IT, [2010] NIIT 06579_09IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 06579/09
CLAIMANT: John Doyle
RESPONDENT: J F Little Electrical
DECISION
That the claimant was made redundant by the respondent and that the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant redundancy of £6,080.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting Alone): Ms Sheils
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The Claim and the Response
1. The claimant lodged a claim form on 15 July 2009 claiming that he had been made redundant and that the respondent had not paid him redundancy money.
2. The respondent did not present a response.
The Hearing
3. As the respondent did not present a response nor appear at the hearing the Tribunal considered the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulation 2005 and in particular Rule 27(5). This provides that:-
if a party fails to attend or to be represented (for the purpose of conducting the party’s case at the hearing under Rule 26) at the time and place fixed for such hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in the absence of that party or may adjourn the hearing to a later date.
Paragraph (6) goes on to state that:-
(6) If a Tribunal wishes to dismiss or dispose of proceedings in the circumstances described at paragraph (5), it shall first consider any information in its possession which has been made available to it by the parties.
4. The Tribunal considered the Office file and heard from the claimant in relation to this point. It was clear that the respondent had not presented a response and there was no correspondence or evidence on the file of contact between the respondent and the Office.
5. The claimant stated that he had had no contact with the respondent himself but that Roisin Bell from the Labour Relations Agency advised him that the respondent had told her that he could not afford to pay the claimant his redundancy money. However, Ms Bell made no reference to the respondent’s intentions to defend the claim.
6. In these circumstances the Tribunal decided to dispose of this case.
Sources of Evidence
The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant.
Facts
7. The Tribunal found the following facts, on a balance of probabilities:
(i) The claimant whose date of birth is 11 October 1957, commenced working for the respondent as an electrician in 1994.
(ii) On Friday 16 January the claimant was told by the respondent that there was no work for him the following Monday. Friday 16 January was the claimant’s last day of work with the respondent.
(iii) On 24 February 2009 the claimant went to see the respondent to ask him for his redundancy money. The respondent told the claimant that the respondent would pay the claimant whatever he was entitled to, although the respondent added “you can’t get blood out of a stone”.
(iv) The respondent went on to ask the claimant to advise him what he was entitled to and “we’ll see”.
(v) The claimant next sent the respondent a letter dated 23 March 2009 asking the respondent to pay him his redundancy money within 28 days. The claimant delivered this letter by hand to the respondent’s foreman.
(vi) On 24 March the claimant received a telephone call from the respondent. The claimant stated that the respondent was rude and abusive towards him and demanded the telephone number of the place the claimant was getting his information (the Labour Relations Agency). The claimant rang the respondent back with this number and the respondent was calmer and said he would ring the Labour Relations Agency to see what he, the respondent, was entitled to as an employer.
(vii) The claimant did not received any correspondence from the respondent nor did he receive any redundancy money.
The Law
8. Under Article 170 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 an employer shall pay redundancy payment to any employee of his if the employee is dismissed by the employer by reason of redundancy. The entitlement to redundancy payment is determined by the provisions of Article 197 of the same Order.
Conclusion
9. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant was made redundant by the respondent and that the respondent did not pay him a redundancy payment.
10. Accordingly the Tribunal orders the respondent to pay the claimant a redundancy payment of:-
10 x 1½ x 320 = £4,800
+
4 x 1 x 320 = £1,280
Total = £6,080
11. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 December 2009, Enniskillen.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
