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 >> Doherty v Vincent Robinson [2011] NIIT 00512_11IT (24 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/00512_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 00512_11IT, [2011] NIIT 512_11IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
The
claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay is well-founded.
It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum
of £170 in respect of holiday pay.
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
£690 in respect of notice pay.
The claimant’s claim in respect of redundancy pay is well-founded. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £855 from the respondent.
Constitution of tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondent was not present or represented.
REASONS
I
announced my Decision at the end of this hearing. At the same
time, I gave oral reasons. Accordingly, what follows is by
way of summary only.
I
was satisfied that the claimant had been employed by the
respondent from 1 April 2004 until 19 November 2010.
I
was satisfied that the claimant received payment in cash, on a
weekly basis, at the rate of £190 per week.
I
was satisfied that in respect of the entire notice period, the
claimant received Job Seekers Allowance at the rate of
approximately £55 per week.
The
respondent had not presented any response to these
proceedings. Accordingly, these proceedings are undefended.
Furthermore, the Department for Employment and Learning has
not sought to participate in these proceedings.
Against
that background, I did not make any pro-active inquiries on
the question of whether or not the claimant “knowingly
participated” in any illegal performance (in the form of
income tax evasion) of his contract of employment. (The
circumstances are such as to make me suspicious that,
throughout lengthy periods, during the course of the contract
of employment, proper amount of income tax was not being
deducted from the claimant’s contract of employment, by
the employer, for payment over to HRMC).
At
the time of the termination of his employment, the claimant
was being paid £190 in cash every week. He never got a
payslip.
I
have calculated the claimant’s claims on the basis that
he was entitled to £190 gross pay per week and that he
was entitled to £170 net pay per week.
9. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 27 April 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
