Mulrine v St Patrick's Training School [2003] NIIT 3254_96 (13 January 2003)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Mulrine v St Patrick's Training School [2003] NIIT 3254_96 (13 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/3254_96.html
Cite as: [2003] NIIT 3254_96

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF NO: 03254/96BC, WO

    APPLICANT: Sean Mulrine

    RESPONDENT: Board of Management, St Patrick's Training School

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant's claim of an unlawful deduction of wages is dismissed.

    APPEARANCES:

    APPLICANT: No appearance by the applicant.

    RESPONDENT: Miss F Lamont, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Napier & Sons, Solicitors.

    Summary Reasons

  1. The applicant did not appear at the Tribunal but had sent written submissions which were considered by the Tribunal in reaching its conclusion. The applicant complained that he had lost a special allowance payment of £1,200 per year gross when the secure unit at St Patrick's Training School was closed in June 1996.

  2. Mr Liam Dumigan who was Acting Director at St Patrick's in 1996 gave evidence and stated that the applicant was paid a special allowance as was Mr Conor Mackle. They both lost the allowance when the provisions of the Children's Order became apparent to the respondent's school. Under the new Order they had to close the secure unit and they lost funding for it. As a result they could not retain the teachers in that unit and they lost their allowances accordingly.

  3. Both the applicant and Mr Mackle presented claims to the Industrial Tribunal for unlawful deduction from their wages. Mr Mackle's case was heard in July 1998 and the Tribunal was referred to the decision therein. Counsel for the respondent stated that

    4. the facts in the applicant's case were identical to those of that applicant's other than Mr Mackle had not worked for as long a period of time in the secure unit as Mr Mulrine had. The Tribunal considered the decision in the Mackle case.

  4. The Tribunal can accept that the applicant gave long service to the respondent and he was aggrieved about the loss of his special allowance. However it was a situation in which they respondent had no option but to close the secure unit and with the closing of the unit the allowance that was pertaining to it had to stop as well. There was no more favourable treatment shown to any other person and in fact Mr Mackle also lost his allowance at the same time. The applicant continued to be paid his salary and he continued to stay with the respondent in work as a teacher. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is a difference between salary and allowance.

  5. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that the £1,200 per annum was anything other than an allowance for working in the secure unit and that it was over and above his salary therefore the removal of it did not constitute an unlawful deduction from his wages and the claim is dismissed.

    6. ___________________________________

    M P PRICE

    Vice President

    Date and place of hearing: 13 January 2003, Belfast

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/3254_96.html