 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Heffron v Roger Dougan [2010] NIIT 02334_10IT (07 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/02334_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 2334_10IT, [2010] NIIT 02334_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2334/10
CLAIMANT: Brendan Joseph Heffron
RESPONDENT: Roger Dougan
DECISION
(A) This claimant’s claim in respect of wages is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £462 in respect of wages.
(B) The claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £132 in respect of holiday pay.
(C) The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,597.50 in respect of notice pay.
(D) The claimant’s claim in respect of redundancy pay is well-founded and it is declared that the claimant is entitled to the sum of £1,900 from the respondent in respect of redundancy pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Paul Buggy
Members: Mr Denis Hampton
Mr Pearse McKenna
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
REASONS
1.
Originally, “Roger
Dougan Joinery” was named as the respondent in these proceedings. However, it
is clear that the proper title of the respondent in these proceedings is “Roger
Dougan” and the title of the proceedings had been amended accordingly.
2.
By order dated 13
January 2011, it was ordered that this case should be heard alongside
proceedings which had separately been brought against the same employer by Michael
McLarnon and by James McKeown.
3.
The McKeown
proceedings have been postponed, pending the determination of an application,
on behalf of Mr McKeown, for the expansion of those proceedings, so as to
include some additional claims which Mr McKeown wishes to make against Mr
Dougan. However, the main hearing of the McLarnon proceedings and the main hearing
of the Heffron proceedings took place within a single hearing, which was held
on the date set out below.
4.
The respondent did
not present any response in these proceedings.
5.
On the basis of
the oral testimony which we received, and on the basis of the documentary
evidence, we were satisfied as to the following.
6.
This claimant,
alongside Mr Heffron and Mr McKeown, had been employed by the respondent, and
was dismissed with effect from 2 April 2010. He was dismissed without notice.
He was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
7.
We are satisfied
that this claimant is entitled to the sum in respect of wages which is
specified above, having had regard to the following. First, the claimant’s net
weekly pay was £330. Secondly, at the time of his dismissal, he was due
payment of a “lying week”, and he was also due payment in respect of two day’s
wages.
8. In relation to holiday pay, we were satisfied as follows. First, the calendar year was the claimant’s holiday leave year. Secondly, the claimant had an annual leave entitlement of 28 days, inclusive of public holidays. Thirdly, at the time of his dismissal, the claimant had accumulated seven days of holiday pay entitlements, but had only been off on five days holidays during 2010.
9.
So, at the time of
his dismissal, the claimant had accumulated entitlements in respect of two days
holidays, which had not at that time been taken. On the basis of £330 net pay
per week, the net amount of holiday pay due in respect of a single day is £66;
therefore, the net amount of the claimant’s holiday entitlement is £132.
10.
We calculated the
claimant’s notice pay entitlement on the basis of the length of his service
with the respondent, the amount of net pay due to him from the respondent, the
amount of wages obtained from any notice period re-employment (there were none)
and the amount of any social security benefits paid to the claimant in respect
of the notice period (according to the claimant, only £52.50 was paid to him).
11.
We calculated the
amount of the claimant’s redundancy pay entitlement on the basis of his length
of service, his age at the time of dismissal, and the amount of his weekly
gross pay (which had to be deemed to be reduced, for redundancy pay purposes,
to a limit of £380 per week).
12. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 15 February 2011, at Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: