[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McConaghy v Lamont & Anor [2005] NIIT 3078_04 (19 August 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/3078_04.html Cite as: [2005] NIIT 3078_4, [2005] NIIT 3078_04

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

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 3078/04

CLAIMANT: Alex McConaghy

RESPONDENTS: 1. William Lamont

2. Department for Employment & Learning

Redundancy Payments Branch

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the first-named respondent is to pay a redundancy payment in the sum of £2,295.00 to the claimant under Article 170(1)(a) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The tribunal holds that is has no jurisdiction to hear the claims for holiday pay and lying week payments because those claims were lodged outside the time limit. There was no evidence to show that it was not reasonably practicable for those claims to be brought within the time limits, and consequently they are dismissed. The second-named respondent is dismissed from the proceedings.

Appearances:

The claimant appeared on his own behalf.

The first-named respondent was not present and was not represented.

The second-named respondent was represented by Ms Baird.

THE ISSUE

The tribunal had to determine whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. If he was so dismissed, the tribunal had to determine whether the first or second-named respondent is liable to pay redundancy, holiday or lying week payments to the claimant.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The tribunal found the following facts:

1. The claimant, whose date of birth is 07.06.75, commenced employment with the first-named respondent as a lorry/forklift driver in June 1994. The claimant had stated in his application that his employment commenced in June 1993, but documentation produced to the tribunal under cover of a letter from the respondent to the tribunal, which was not disputed by the claimant and was received by the tribunal, showed the correct date to be 24 June 1994.
2. The claimant's employment ended on 28 June 2004 when he was dismissed by way of redundancy. The fact of his redundancy was common case. This was caused by the fact that Farm Fed Chickens, who previously had contracted their deliveries to the first-named respondent, started to use their own lorries and drivers, thereby removing the first-named respondent's sole contract and source of income.
3. The claimant submitted his completed application form to the Office of Tribunals in November 2004, claiming for redundancy payment, holiday payments and lying week payments.
4. The first-named respondent stated in correspondence to the tribunal hearing in April 2005 that he was insolvent. He accepted that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment but disputed the claims to holiday pay and the lying week because he stated that they were out of time. As a result of his claim of insolvency, the second-named respondent was directed by the tribunal to be joined as an additional respondent to determine any liability by virtue of Article 227 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
5. The second-named respondent has now declared that the first-named respondent is not insolvent within the meaning of Article 228 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and that consequently it is not liable to make any payment to the claimant. In the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary, the tribunal finds as a fact that the first-named respondent is not insolvent for these purposes.

THE DECISION

The tribunal finds that the claimant was made redundant and consequently is entitled to a redundancy payment by virtue of Article 170 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In view of the tribunal's finding in this case that an insolvency situation does not exist, the first-named respondent, who accepts the claimant's entitlement to a redundancy payment, remains liable to pay it to the claimant. The second-named respondent therefore is not liable, and is dismissed from the proceedings.

The claimant was unable to provide any ground which could establish that it was not reasonably practicable for him to submit his application for holiday pay and the lying week within three months of the relevant date. The tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine those matters, and they must fail.

The amount of redundancy payment is calculated as follows:

8.½ weeks x £270 (being the maximum weekly amount allowed by the legislation for the relevant period)

= £2,295.00

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 19 August 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: