THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  2720/10

CLAIMANT:			Deirdre Hamill

RESPONDENT:		Stephen Fagan

DECISION 
(A)	The claimant’s claim in respect of unpaid wages is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £59 in respect of unpaid 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 £312 in respect of unpaid 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 £780 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 due £1,290 from the respondent in respect of redundancy pay. 

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr Paul Buggy
	
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Thomas Hamill.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.

REASONS

1.	At the end of the main hearing of this case, I announced my decision.  At the same time, I give oral reasons for that decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

2.	I was satisfied that the claimant had been employed in a shop at Greenvale Street, Ballymena from September 2004 until 20 August 2010, and that she was dismissed, by reason of redundancy, with effect from the later date.  I was satisfied that the respondent to these proceedings (“the respondent”) became the owner of the relevant business on 1 June 2009 and that, on that date, there was a transfer of the relevant undertaking from Mr Seamus O’Hara to the respondent   I was satisfied that, at that point, the respondent owed the claimant wages, and still owes her wages; and that he owed her holiday pay, and that he still owes her holiday pay.  I was also satisfied that the claimant had been provided with no prior notice of her dismissal, and that no notice pay was given to her.

3.	I note that, with effect from 18 October 2010, the claimant began working at the same premises, for a new owner.  However, no argument has been made, on behalf of the current respondent in this case, that there has been a transfer of an undertaking from the current respondent to the new owner.  Furthermore, no such argument has been made on behalf of the Department for Employment and Learning (which has not intervened in the present proceedings).

4.	If the Department, in due course, applies for a review of this Decision, the question of whether or not there has been a TUPE transfer, from the current respondent to the new owner, may well become a live question.  However, at present, it is not a live issue and accordingly, in this Decision, I do not need to consider it.

5.	In arriving at my determination in respect of the amount of redundancy pay, I took account of the claimant’s age, her length of service and her gross weekly salary.

6.	In determining the amount of wages due to the claimant, and in determining the amount of holiday pay due to her, I took account of the amount of her net weekly wages.  

7.	In determining the amount of notice pay which is due to the claimant, I took account of her net weekly pay and of her length of service.  

8.	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, Belfast.		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: