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 >> Harrison v Mark McMurray T/A McMurray Gla... Mark McMurray T/A McMurray Gla... [2011] NIIT 01941_11IT (11 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01941_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01941_11IT, [2011] NIIT 1941_11IT |
||
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 1941/11
1968/11
CLAIMANTS: Thomas George Harrison
Jonathan Quee
RESPONDENT: Mark McMurray
T/A McMurray Glazing
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that:-
1(i) the claimant, Thomas George Harrison, is entitled to a redundancy payment from the respondent on the basis of the information set out at Paragraph 4 below; and
(ii) the respondent do pay to the claimant, Thomas George Harrison, the sum of £2,556.00 in respect of notice pay.
2(i) the claimant, Jonathan Quee, is entitled to a redundancy payment from the respondent on the basis of the information set out at Paragraph 6 below; and
(ii) the respondent do pay to the claimant, Jonathan Quee, the sum of £2,448.00 in respect of notice pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimants appeared in person and were not represented.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
1. The title of the proceedings is amended to that now shown to reflect the trade name of the respondent.
2. These claims arose out of the same redundancy situation and with the consent of both claimants, I consolidated these matters.
3. Although the respondent, Mr McMurray, did not appear and was not represented, he lodged responses in both cases in which he stated that he did not intend to resist these claims.
4(i) Mr Harrison worked for the respondent, a glazing contractor, from 29 April 2002 until 25 July 2011. He was made redundant on the latter date.
(ii) His pay was £354.00 per week gross, £284.00 net.
(iii) He had nine years’ complete service.
(iv) He was aged 54 at the time of dismissal.
(v) The appropriate multiplier for calculating his redundancy payment is 131/2.
(vi) He is therefore entitled to a redundancy payment of:-
£354.00 x 131/2 = £4,779.00
5. I also find that he is entitled to nine week’s notice pay:-
£284.00 x 9 = £2,556.00
Total £7,335.00
6(i) Mr Quee worked for the same respondent. He, too, was made redundant on 25 July 2011. He had worked for the respondent since 25 February 2002.
(ii) His pay was £336.00 gross, £272.00 net.
(iii) He had nine years’ complete service.
(iv) He was aged 38 at the time of dismissal.
(v) The appropriate multiplier for calculating his redundancy payment is 9.
(vi) He is therefore entitled to a redundancy payment of:-
£336.00 x 9 = £3,024.00
7. I also find that he is entitled to nine week’s notice pay:-
£272.00 x 9 = £2,448.00
Total £5,472.00
8. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 8 November 2011, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
