BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Murray v Firecrest NI Ltd Department for Employment and ... Firecrest Compartmentation Ltd Department for Employment and ... [2012] NIIT 00280_11IT (23 May 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/280_11IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 280_11IT, [2012] NIIT 00280_11IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2789/10
280/11
CLAIMANT: Edward Patrick Murray
RESPONDENTS: 1. Firecrest NI Ltd
2. Firecrest Compartmentation Ltd
3. Department for Employment and Learning
DECISION
(A) None of the claimant’s claims against Firecrest Compartmentation Ltd (“Compartmentation”) is well-founded. Accordingly, all of those claims are dismissed.
(B) The claimant’s claim against NI in respect of holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that NI shall pay to the claimant the sum of £444 in respect of holiday pay.
(D) The claimant's claim against NI in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that NI shall pay to the claimant the sum of £940 in respect of notice pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
Compartmentation was debarred from participating in the proceedings, because Compartmentation had not presented any response in these proceedings.
NI was not represented at this hearing.
The Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) was not represented at this hearing.
REASONS
1. In the course of the 18 April hearing, I announced my decision. At the same time, I gave reasons for that decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2. This claimant is one of a number of claimants who are making pending claims, against Compartmentation and/or against NI, in respect of employment debts.
3. In these proceedings, the claimant made a claim against Compartmentation and against NI, in respect of a redundancy payment. He also sought a declaration, pursuant to Article 205 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”), that Compartmentation or NI had become liable to make a redundancy payment to him in March 2011. Those particular claims, and that particular application, were the subject of a hearing on 3 October 2011. The outcomes of that hearing were as follows:
(1) I decided that the claimant's redundancy payment claim against Compartmentation was not well-founded.
(2) I decided that the
claimant's redundancy pay claim against NI was
well-founded.
(3) I decided, pursuant to Article 205 of the 1996 Order, that NI had become liable to make a redundancy payment to the claimant.
4. This is my decision in respect of the claims which were the subject of adjudication during the hearing which was held on 18 April 2012.
5. During the course of this hearing, this claimant told me that the only claims which he now wishes to pursue against an employer are claims in respect of holiday pay and notice pay.
6. The claimant recognises that he currently cannot make any successful appeal against the Department’s refusal (in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of employment debts) to make payments in relation to the claimant’s wages, holiday pay and notice pay claims, because of the current insolvency position. (The current insolvency position is that NI is not “insolvent”, in the sense in which the term “insolvent” is used in the context of the statutory guarantee legislation).
7. Accordingly, the focus of these proceedings was on the remaining claims which the claimant wishes to make against the employer. As already noted above, those claims are claims for holiday pay and notice pay.
8. The claimant gave evidence on oath.
9. During the course of his oral testimony, the claimant confirmed that the facts stated in the Morgan/Martin cases (Case Ref: 2769/10 and Others) were to the best of his knowledge, true.
10. I am satisfied that, during the autumn of 2010, a “TUPE” transfer occurred, in respect of the entity to which the claimant was assigned at the time of that transfer. I am satisfied that the entity was transferred, by that transfer, from Compartmentation to NI.
11. The amount of the claimant’s holiday pay award is calculated on the basis of gross pay.
12. The award in respect of notice pay has been calculated on the basis of the following:
(1) The amount of net wages, which the claimant would have received if he had been given due notice, has been calculated;
(2) From that amount, I have deducted the amount received by the claimant in respect of Job Seekers Allowance during the notice period.
13. The notice pay award, as specified above, differs from the amount of notice pay which I announced orally. (I had told the parties that any mistakes in calculation, during the hearing, would be corrected in the written version).
14. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 April 2012, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
