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 >> Dunlop v Department for Employment and ... [2013] NIIT 2449_12IT (29 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/2449_12IT.html Cite as: [2013] NIIT 2449_12IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2449/12
CLAIMANT: Roger Dunlop
RESPONDENT: Department of Employment and Learning
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
Apart from the minor corrections detailed below, the decision in this case, issued to the parties on 18 April 2013, is confirmed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs M Watson
Appearances:
The claimant presented his own claim and assisted his sister in her claim. Both claims were heard together.
The respondent was represented by Mr J Kennedy, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.
1. The issue for determination in this case was whether the claimant had a contract of employment with Adamsez (NI) Ltd when it became insolvent on 29 February 2012. My determination was that the claimant had such a contract and was entitled to redundancy and other associated payments.
2. It was common case that the claimant was a Director of Adamsez (NI) Ltd and a member of its Board from the beginning. It was also common case that an individual can be a Director and have a contract of employment.
3. The respondent’s application for a review of my decision is based on the provisions of Rule 34(e) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedures) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.
4. In that application for review and both sets of submissions presented with it, the respondent has, in my view, asked me to include in that review issues that were not opened to me during either hearing. I am asked to make further determinations in respect of TUPE Regulations, Article 173 of the Employment Rights Order and whether National Minimum Wage provisions should apply to employees who are also Directors.
5. The claimant is not legally represented. As the respondent has now lodged papers in the Court of Appeal in which all these issues are included I confirm the original decision in this case except for the corrections below.
6. When checking the final version of the decision for signing, I did not delete a sentence at the end of paragraph 35. This sentence “(The phrase neutrality of obligation” does not appear in Harvey or Clarke or Neufield”).
This failure to delete was a mistake on my part which I now rectify – with apologies. The deletion has no effect on the decision.
In addition, at paragraph 37 (7) “to 75% should be “by 75”.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
