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 >> Thomson v Aaron Noble t/a ADN Contracts [2009] NIIT 5470_09IT (25 August 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2009/5470_09IT.html Cite as: [2009] NIIT 5470_9IT, [2009] NIIT 5470_09IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 5470/09
CLAIMANT: Mark Thompson
RESPONDENT: Aaron Noble t/a ADN Contracts
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims in respect of one week’s pay in lieu of notice in the sum of £310 and 12 days of holidays accrued but not taken in the sum of £744 are well-founded and the respondent is ordered to pay these sums to the claimant. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s claim for return of his personal belongings or a payment of £150 in lieu thereof as it did not consider that it had jurisdiction to make such an order. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s claim for a shortfall in paternity payment.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Ms W A Crooke
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and gave evidence on his own behalf.
The respondent did not enter any response or appear or instruct any representation.
Sources of evidence
1. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant.
The claim and the defence
2. The claim of the claimant was for £310 in respect of a payment in lieu of notice; £744 for accrued holiday pay, his personal belongings or £150 to replace them and a shortfall of £34 in a paternity payment. No defence was entered by the respondent.
The relevant law
3. The relevant law is found in Article 45 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.
Preliminary matters
4. The tribunal made an order amending the title of the proceedings as it became apparent from the evidence that the claimant was employed by a sole trader by the name of Aaron Noble trading as ADN Contracts.
The facts found
5. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a labourer from 21 July 2008 to 30 January 2009.
6. He had difficulty in obtaining holiday pay from the respondent.
7. On 31 January 2009 the claimant was told by the respondent that the main contractor on the site had no more work for his employer and consequently for him.
8. In the days that followed the claimant was told that he might get more work arising from another job being organised by his employer.
9. This did not materialise and he contacted the main contractor on the site to ask him if he had any work available for the claimant. The main contractor explained to the claimant that his employer had not finished working for him and that he had put someone else to work on the job in place of the claimant, telling the contractor that the claimant had left.
10. The claimant made sundry attempts to recover the sums due without success.
Conclusions
11. As the claimant had worked for in and around six months for the respondent, he is entitled to receive one week’s pay in lieu of notice in the sum of £310 which, supported by the claimant’s oral evidence and by reference to his P45 appeared to be his net wage per week to the tribunal.
12. By virtue of the Working Time Regulations the claimant was entitled to receive 24 days holiday in the year, and as he has worked for half a year, he is entitled to half his yearly entitlement in the sum of 12 days. As the claimant’s daily rate of remuneration is £62 he is entitled to the sum of £744 in lieu of holidays accrued but not taken at termination of employment.
13. The claimant’s claims for personal belongings or a payment in lieu and an alleged shortfall in a paternity payment are both dismissed by the tribunal. The claim for personal belongings was dismissed because the tribunal did not consider it had the power to make any such order. The claim for paternity leave was dismissed because no proof of how this was made up was provided by the claimant.
14. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 13 August Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
