 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Vitty v KPD Calibre Ltd [2011] NIIT 01146_11IT (23 September September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01146_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 1146_11IT, [2011] NIIT 01146_11IT |
||
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1146/11
CLAIMANT: Jonathan Vitty
RESPONDENT: KPD Calibre Ltd
DECISION
The claimant has withdrawn his unfair dismissal claim, which accordingly is dismissed. All of the claimant’s other claims are well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant:
£5,896 in respect of unpaid wages;
£1,206. in respect of holiday pay;
£1,876 in respect of unpaid notice pay; and
£1,520 in respect of redundancy pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
REASONS
1.
At the end of the
hearing, I announced my decision. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for
that decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2.
In a letter dated
1 July 2011, the respondent’s solicitors, Richard Barbour and Co, informed the
Secretary of the tribunals as follows: “we have instructed by our client not to
proceed with this matter as the Company is going into Liquidation”.
3. I did not know whether the contemplated liquidation is a creditor’s voluntary liquidation, or whether it involves a winding up order by the High Court. I did not know whether liquidation has since actually taken place. In those circumstances, I decided to proceed with this hearing.
4.
I was satisfied
that the claimant had been employed by the Company for more than four years,
that he is less than 40 years of age, that his gross pay was £646 per week,
that his net pay was £469 per week, that his employment with the Company came
to an end on 9 August 2010, that he was given no adequate prior notice of
termination of his employment, and that his employment terminated because of
redundancy.
5. In these proceedings, the claimant has claimed in respect of wages, holiday pay, notice pay, redundancy pay and unfair dismissal.
6. The claimant is not optimistic that the Company will be able to meet any award which is made against it. Accordingly, in reality, the claimant expects that any awards made by an industrial tribunal will have practical effect only as a means of persuading the Department for Employment and Learning that it should make appropriate payments (in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain employment debts) as a reaction to those awards.
7. Against that background, the claimant realises that a claim for unfair dismissal would be of limited practical value. Accordingly, during the course of this hearing, the claimant withdrew his claim for unfair dismissal.
8. I told the claimant that if (contrary to current expectations), he finds that the Company does have significant funds, and if he applies for a review of the dismissal of his unfair dismissal claim, I am likely to consider any such application (any application for the re-opening of the unfair dismissal issue) sympathetically, provided that it is made no later than three months after the date of this hearing.
9. I was satisfied that it was not practicable for the claimant to issue these proceedings within the three months period beginning with the date of his dismissal, and I was satisfied that the claims for wages, holiday pay and notice pay had been lodged within a further period which I considered to be reasonable.
10. The redundancy payment claim in these proceedings was not brought within the primary period contemplated in Article 199 of the relevant legislation. However, it appears to me to be just and equitable that the claimant should receive a redundancy payment. (See paragraph (2) of Article 199).
11. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 6 September 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: