THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	396/12

CLAIMANT:			Rima Laurinaitiene 

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Alan Grundie Enterprises Ltd
2.	Alan Grundie
3.	Irish Spars and Rigging Ltd
4.	The Department for Employment and Learning

DECISION 
(A)	The claimant’s claim for notice pay against Alan Grundie Enterprises Ltd (“AGEL”) is well-founded and a remedies hearing in respect of notice pay will be held in due course (if required).
(B)	The claimant’s redundancy pay claim against AGEL is well-founded and it is declared that AGEL is liable to make a redundancy payment of £1,911 to the claimant.
(C)	The claimant’s claims against Alan Grundie and against Irish Spars and Rigging Ltd are not well-founded and accordingly they are dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr P Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

AGEL and Alan Grundie were represented by Ms J Leonard, Solicitor.

The Department was represented by Mr P McAteer, Barrister-at-Law.

Irish Spars and Rigging Ltd was not represented.

REASONS

1.	This is a decision only in respect of the claimant’s redundancy pay and notice pay claims against her employer. (She has withdrawn any other claims against the employer).  I have not determined any appeal against any decisions of the Department (taken by the Department in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain employment debts); however, the Department has made it clear that it will regard itself as being bound by the outcome of the claimant’s claims against her employer.

2.	I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for that decision.  

3.	I was satisfied that the claimant was employed in a particular business which ended up in the hands of AGEL, and that that company was the claimant’s employer in January 2012.  

4.	I was satisfied that the claimant’s employment came to an end because the business closed down.  I was satisfied that the reason for the termination of her employment was redundancy.  I was satisfied that she only got one week’s notice of her dismissal.  I was satisfied that she was dismissed in January 2012.

5.	All of the parties who were represented at this hearing agreed that, in January 2012, AGEL was the claimant’s employer, and that she had been continuously employed in the business for more than five years, but less than six.  I also came to those same conclusions, on the basis of the claimant’s claim form, and on the basis on an uncontroverted witness statement which had been provided by Alan Grundie.  

6.	Ms Leonard informed me that there was little prospect of AGEL being able to pay the amount of any tribunal award.  

7.	Accordingly, for practical purposes, the focus of attention shifts to the Department.  

8.	Now that the claimant has obtained a tribunal award in relation to redundancy pay, the Department will be in a position to make a payment to her in respect of redundancy.  

9.	Unless and until AGEL becomes formally insolvent (in the sense in which that term is used in the context of the statutory guarantee legislation which is to be found in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996), the Department will have no power to make payments to this claimant in respect of notice pay.  

10.	This decision is based on the following information:

	Gross weekly pay:				£254.80
	Number of deemed years of service:	5
	Age on date of dismissal:			52
	Multiplier (for redundancy pay):		7.5

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:  2 May 2013, Belfast.		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: