THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS  

CASE REF:    521/12 

CLAIMANT:	Sarah Townsend

RESPONDENT:	Stephen Crawford

DECISION

(A)	The claimant’s maternity pay claim is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £257 in respect of maternity pay.

(B)	The claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £563 in respect of holiday pay.

(C)	The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £291 as damages in respect of that claim.

(D)	The claimant’s redundancy pay claim is well-founded.  It is declared that the respondent is liable to make a redundancy payment of £750 to the claimant.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman  (Sitting alone):	Mr P Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

The respondent was debarred from participating in the proceedings, because he had not presented a response.

REASONS

1.	In the proceedings as originally formulated, the claimant named “Crawford and Pearce Electrical” as the respondent.  However, that is merely the trade name for Mr Stephen Crawford.  It is clear that, at all times which are material for the purposes of these proceedings, the claimant’s sole employer was Mr Crawford.  The title of the proceedings has been amended accordingly.

2.	In these proceedings, the claimant makes claims in respect of statutory maternity pay, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay.

3.	I considered the claimant to be a truthful witness.  After the conclusion of the hearing, she wrote to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals, enclosing a letter from HMRC which confirms that she was employed by the respondent from 31 March 2008 until 26 January 2012.

4.	I am satisfied that the claimant’s maternity pay claim should be construed as a claim which has been made pursuant to the unlawful deduction of earnings legislation.  That claim is within the scope of the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals because the claimant’s entitlement to the maternity pay has not been disputed by the respondent.

5.	I was satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent from 31 March 2008 until 6 March 2012.  I was satisfied that, with effect from the latter date, the claimant was dismissed because of redundancy.  I was satisfied that she was not given due notice of the termination of her employment.  I was satisfied that, at the date of termination, the claimant had accrued holiday pay entitlements, but had not yet availed of them.  I was satisfied that the claimant’s maternity pay entitlement, to the extent indicated above, was withheld from her.

6.	The claimant’s holiday pay entitlement has been calculated on the basis of gross pay.

7.	The claimant’s notice pay entitlement has to be calculated so as to provide her with compensation no greater than the amount which she actually lost as a result of the failure to provide her with due notice.

8.	The claimant’s redundancy pay has been calculated on the basis of gross pay.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:       6 June 2012, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: