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 >> Roberts v Fisher Metal Engineering LLP (... [2010] NIIT 132_10IT (17 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/132_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 132_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 132/10
CLAIMANT: Mark Roberts
RESPONDENT: Fisher Metal Engineering
LLP (formerly known as
WR Fisher LLP)
DECISION
The claimant’s claim in respect of a redundancy payment is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall make a redundancy payment to the claimant of £1,050.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr P Buggy
Members: Ms N Wright
Dr D Mercer
Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of either of the employers.
The Department was represented by Mr P McAteer, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitors Office.
REASONS
1. We are satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent in the autumn of 2009 and that he was then dismissed by reason of redundancy. We are satisfied that the respondent never made a redundancy payment to the claimant.
2. The claimant was originally employed by Fisher Metal Group Limited (“the old employer”), which went into administrative receivership in the summer of 2009. Soon afterwards, the claimant received notification from “the new employer” (the respondent to these proceedings) that he was to be placed on temporary lay-off. The claimant was never subsequently told, either orally or in writing, either by the old employer or by the new employer, to resume work. He did receive his P45, later during 2009, from the administrative receiver of the old employer.
3. The claimant made applications to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of redundancy pay, and in respect of certain other employment debts. Those applications were refused.
4. In this Decision, we have now decided that a redundancy payment was due from the new employer. Therefore, the claimant may now consider it to be appropriate either to make a fresh application to the Department (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor in respect of redundancy payments), or to make fresh contact with the Department in respect of his earlier applications to them.
5. This Decision relates to the claimant’s redundancy pay entitlement as against his employers. Therefore, this is a Decision which may ultimately involve a payment out of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. Accordingly, the Department was entitled to appear at this hearing as if it where a party to these proceedings, and it was entitled to be heard at the main hearing of these proceedings, just as if it had been a party. (See Rule 51 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005). That was the basis upon which Mr McAteer, on behalf of the Department, participated in this hearing.
6. On behalf of the Department, Mr McAteer drew our attention to the content of an application form which the claimant had completed when he was making the applications to the Department which we have already referred to above. In arriving at our ultimate conclusions in this case, we took account of the contents of that application; we also took account of the contents of the claimant’s claim form in these proceedings, and of the contents of a response which had been submitted on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings.
7. On the basis of all of the documentary information, we noted that the claimant was born in 1980. We are sure that he had been employed in the relevant entity (the business at 1 Hallstown Road, Lisburn, which was first run by the old employer and which was immediately afterwards run by the new employer) continuously for at least a period of four full years, but we are not sure whether he was employed there for a period of five full years. Accordingly, we have awarded compensation in this case on the basis that the claimant was employed in the entity only for four years. (If we are wrong about that matter, the claimant can apply for review of our decision, provided he does so in writing, within 14 days of the date on which this Decision is issued).
8. We are satisfied that there has been a TUPE transfer, whereby the relevant entity (the entity to which the claimant was assigned in the summer of 2009) was transferred from the old employer to the new employer.
9. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 21 October 2010, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
