THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:    938/11  

CLAIMANT:	Nigel David Broome

RESPONDENT:	1.	Heifer Hill Ltd (in liquidation)
	2.	Department for Employment and Learning

DECISION

(A)	The claimant’s claims against Heifer Hill Ltd are well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent company (“the company”) shall pay to the claimant the sum of £660 in respect of notice pay and the sum of £964 in respect of holiday pay, and it is declared that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment from the company of £1,710.

(B)	The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal against the company has been withdrawn and is dismissed.

(C)	The claimant’s appeals against the Department’s decisions are upheld and I am satisfied that the claimant is entitled to receive the following sums from the Department:  £660 in respect of notice pay, £964 in respect of holiday pay and £1,710 in respect of redundancy pay.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman  (sitting alone):	Mr P Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Mr N Cruikshanks of the Department.

REASONS

1.	The company is in creditors voluntary liquidation.  The liquidator wrote to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals, and stated that he did not intend to defend the claims which have been made against the company in this case.

2.	It appears the company will not be able to make any payment in respect of the tribunal’s award.

3.	The claimant applied to the Department, in the Department’s role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain employment debts.

4.	Those applications were unsuccessful.  Accordingly, in these proceedings, the claimant appeals against those Departmental decisions.

5.	At the end of the hearing, I issued my decision orally.  At the same time, I gave oral reasons for my decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

6.	The Department rejected the claimant’s applications on the basis of the information and documentation which was available to the Department at the time his applications.  During the course of this hearing, the claimant gave evidence on oath.  This was truthful evidence.  He also provided documentation which had previously been unavailable to the Department.

7.	Having carefully considered that testimony and documentation, I am satisfied that all of the claimant’s claims are well-founded.  (My understanding is that, having considered that new evidence, the Department now also accepts that the claimant’s claims are well-founded.)

8.	The figures which I have awarded in respect of notice pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay are all figures which have been agreed between the claimant and the Department.

9.	Until the main hearing of this case, there was some lack of clarity in relation to some aspects of the claimant’s employment record and of his employment claims.  All of those matters have been resolved during the course of the main hearing of this case.  In particular, I am satisfied that the claimant was employed in the relevant enterprise (a restaurant at Dromara) from October 2007 until January 2011, and that there was a TUPE transfer of that enterprise to the company, during the time when the claimant was employed in the enterprise.

10.	According to the claim form, the claimant was making a claim of unfair dismissal in this case.  During the course of this hearing, he told us that he was not pursuing that claim.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:       9 August 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: