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 >> Steed v Department for Employment & Le... Department for Employment & Le... Department for Employment & Le... Department for Employment & Le... [2012] NIIT 00634_12IT (26 September 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/634_12IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 634_12IT, [2012] NIIT 00634_12IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 634/12
788/12
789/12
790/12
CLAIMANTS: Elaine Steed
Samuel Floyd
Frank McDougall
Daniel Gabbey
RESPONDENT: Department for Employment & Learning
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimants’ appeals against the respondent Department’s decisions to reject their applications to it as statutory guarantor for certain payments, namely notice pay, arrears of wages, and holiday pay, are dismissed. None of the claims were presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with the dates on which the decisions of the Department were communicated to the claimants, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable where it was not reasonably practicable for the complaints to be presented before the end of that period of three months.
Consequently, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the claims.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimants, Elaine Steed, Samuel Floyd and Frank McDougall, appeared in person and were not represented. Daniel Gabbey did not appear, nor was he represented.
The respondent Department was represented by Mr M Cruickshanks.
1. The claims were consolidated and heard together with the consent of those present. The respondent’s representative accepted that, notwithstanding Mr Gabbey’s absence, his claim should succeed if the others did.
2. The claimants’ claims, as set out above, were dismissed for reasons given at the hearing.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 13 September 2012, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
