McCrickard v McGreevy  (Unfair Dismissal)  (18 April 2002)
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	03995/98UD
00223/99RP
00224/99WS

APPLICANT:	Bernard Francis McCrickard

RESPONDENT:	Daniel McGreevy 

DECISION
Extended Reasons: 	

Pursuant to Rule 10(4)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure)
Regulations (NI) 1996, these reasons are given in extended form.

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is as follows;
 
(i)	The Applicant was unfairly dismissed on 23 October 1998.  

(ii)	The Tribunal now accedes to the Applicant’s claim for a Basic Award as set out in paragraph 7 iii. below.

(iii)	This Basic Award is to be considered a debt falling due on the appropriate date, pursuant to Article 234(1) of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 [hereafter referred to as “the 1996 Order”]

Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Ms R Connolly, Solicitor.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.

1.	On 10 December 1998, the Applicant presented an Originating Application dated 8 December 1998.  By his Originating Application the Applicant complained of Unfair Dismissal.  The Respondent did not enter a Notice of Appearance.

2.	Based on the Applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant was born on 17 September 1947.  The Applicant started working for John Brannigan T/A Brannigan Contracts in or about 14 November 1983.  He continued to work for Mr Brannigan until or about November 1997, when the latter informed the Applicant that the Respondent would be taking over from him.  From or about November 1997, the Respondent signed the Applicant’s pay cheques, and in all other respects the Applicant’s duties were unchanged.  There was no break in his continuity of service.  

3.	On 21 October 1998, the Applicant received a letter signed by the Respondent stating that as there was “no work here in the North of Ireland…I have no alternative other than to lay you off as and from 23 October 1998.  Hopefully some work will turn up in the very near future…When that happens, I will be in touch with you.  Sorry about this”.  The Respondent never contacted the Applicant again.

4.	On 23 October 1998, which was his effective date of termination, the Applicant was earning £210 gross per week, and £171.21 per week nett.  He did not receive any pay in lieu of notice, or any payment for the purported “lay off”.  However, the Applicant makes no claim for any such amounts before this Tribunal.  The Respondent has been in bankruptcy since or about 1 September 2000.  The Applicant secured employment with a Mr Fitzpatrick on or about 1 March 1999.  The Applicant received Job Seekers Allowance from or 15 November 1998 to 28 February 1999.  The Applicant now earns £220.00 gross per week and £192.00 nett per week.

5.	When the matter was previously listed before a differently constituted Tribunal, a settlement of the Applicant’s claim for Unfair Dismissal was agreed between the parties.  However, the Respondent never implemented the settlement, and thus the matter came before this Tribunal on 22 February 2002.  

6.	The Applicant now seeks an Order from the Tribunal pursuant to Article 229(1)(d) of the 1996 Order.   

7.	
THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Having considered the Originating Application, all the evidence before it (oral and documentary) and the representations made by the Applicant’s solicitor, the Tribunal unanimously determines as follows;

(i)	The Applicant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 23 October 1998, contrary to Article 126 and Part XI of the 1996 Order.

(ii)	On the effective date of termination, 23 October 1998, the Applicant was aged 51 years, and had completed 14 years continuous service with the Respondent, (who was a transferee of an undertaking from the Applicant’s previous employer, Mr Brannigan on or about November 1997) without any break in the Applicant’s continuity of service.

(iii)	The Applicant did not receive any payment from the Respondent on or after his effective date of termination, and the Tribunal now accedes to his application and makes an Order in favour of the Applicant, pursuant to Articles 227, 229(1)(d) and 153 of the 1996 Order as follows;

Basic Award

10 x 1.5 x £210	=		£3,150.00
4   x  1   x £210      	=		£   840.00

TOTAL BASIC AWARD		£3,990.00

(iv)	The Tribunal makes no reduction to the amount at 7 iii above, pursuant to the provisions of Article 156 of the 1996 Order.

(v)	As it appears the Respondent is insolvent, pursuant to Article 228 of the 1996 Order, and particularly Article 228(2)(a) of the 1996 Order, the total amount at 7 iii above is a debt pursuant to Article 229(1)(d) of the 1996 Order.  Pursuant to Article 230(b) of the 1996 Order, the appropriate date is 1 September 2000, when the Respondent became insolvent.

(vi)	The total amount at 7 iii above is now to be considered a debt, pursuant to Article 234(1) of the 1996 Order.

	(vii)	No further or other Order is now sought or made.

This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing:  22 February 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 18 April 2002