THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	684/08

		

CLAIMANTS:		Darren Noble Wilson

RESPONDENT:		Derek Hassard – Poplar Engineering

		 
DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s complaint is dismissed as the tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities as to the accurate legal identity of the respondent and the amount of monies due, if any, in respect of redundancy payment. 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:		Ms M Sheehan

Members		Mr J McDonnell
			Mr D Edmont

Appearances:

The claimant was unrepresented and did not appear at hearing.

The respondent failed to appear at hearing. 

Issues

1.	The claimant presented an originating complaint that he had been employed as a grounds maintenance man with the respondent, between an unidentified date in March 2000 to 13 March 2008. The claim concerned his employer’s failure to account to him for redundancy payment subsequent to being placed on short time for a number of months starting on 28 November 2007 and then advised to seek alternative employment in March 2008. The respondent entered an appearance which identified the employer as Poplar Engineering and the contact name within that organisation as Derek Hassard. The respondent claimed that the claimant did not have continuous employment with the respondent but did not detail any of the breaks in employment. Further the last day of employment was detailed as 30 November 2007. The tribunal had to determine the correct name of the respondent, whether there was entitlement to a redundancy payment and if so the level of award due on termination of his employment with the respondent.

The Facts

2.	The originating complaint was received in the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal on 1 May 2008. The respondent entered a response on 17 June 2008.

3.	There was no attendance for the hearing by the claimant or any representative on behalf of the respondent. The tribunal gave consideration to the originating claim form and notice of appearance. The claimant provided no other documents nor was any indication sent to the tribunal as requested in the notice of hearing dated 11 July 2008 that a postponement was required. 

4.	Poplar Engineering is not a legally identified individual against which it would be appropriate to make an order. It does not appear to be a limited liability company and if it is a trade name, no documentation was submitted by the claimant to identify the correct legal identity in respect of same. The respondent’s notice of appearance was forwarded to the claimant on 1 July 2008 and not returned to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal as undelivered.

5.	There is clearly clarification required as to the length of time that the claimant was in this employment before the effective date of termination could be ascertained and the period of “continuous” employment of this claimant with his employer as a grounds maintenance man.

Applicable Law

6.	The relevant law is found in Articles 170 to 190 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as amended.

Conclusions 

7.	The tribunal has determined that it is not possible on the balance of probabilities to be satisfied as to what monies if any are owed to the claimant in light of the conflicting information provided on the originating claim form and the notice of appearance as to the dates of employment and the correct identity of his employer at the relevant time. The notice of hearing advises the claimant that it is his responsibility to “prove the facts of his case” and documents such as pay slips, contract of employment are given as examples of the documents that should be brought to hearing. The claimant failed to attend the hearing or make any contact indicating that he did or did not wish the matter to proceed in his absence. The tribunal attempted by using the telephone details provided on the documentation before it to contact the claimant but there was no answer on either telephone number. The tribunal did consider adjourning this hearing but it appeared to the tribunal that one explanation for the lack of communication was that the parties had resolved issues between themselves but not troubled to advise the tribunal. Mindful of the overriding objective set out in the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 it did not appear to the tribunal that an adjournment in these circumstances was warranted to deal “justly” with the matter. Accordingly the tribunal has determined to dismiss the claim in all the circumstances. 

Chairman:	

Date and place of hearing: 4 September 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: