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 >> Simpson v Rubbertec International Limite... [2010] NIIT 2376_10IT (23 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/2376_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 2376_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2376/10
CLAIMANT: Lee Simpson
RESPONDENT: Rubbertec International Limited
DECISION
(A) The claimant’s claim in respect of unpaid wages is well-founded. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £269 in respect of unpaid wages.
(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 £394 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 £2,772 in respect of notice pay.
(D) The claimant’s claim in respect of redundancy pay is well-founded. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to £4,708 redundancy payment from the respondent.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Paul Buggy
Members: Mr Ian Carroll
Mr Jim Welsh
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr John O’Neill, Solicitor of Thompsons McClure Solicitors.
There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
REASONS
1.
Originally, these proceedings
were brought against “Rubbertec Limited”. We were satisfied that the proper
title of the respondent company is “Rubbertec International Limited” and we
altered the title of the respondent, for the purpose of these proceedings,
accordingly. At the end of this hearing, we issued our decision orally. At
the same time, we gave oral reasons for our decision. Accordingly, what
follows is by way of summary only.
2. In these proceedings the claimant claims all of the sums specified above. On the basis of the claimant’s claim form, on the basis of his oral testimony, and on the basis of a letter dated 5 May 2010 from the respondent, we were satisfied that the claimant had been employed by the respondent company, and that he is entitled to the sums claimed by him, and that those sums have not been paid to him.
3. As was explained during the course of this
hearing, the position is as follows. The respondent has not defended these
proceedings. In their letter of 5 May 2010, the respondent in effect admits
liability in respect of the sums which are claimed in respect of wages and
accrued holiday entitlement. In the circumstances, it has been unnecessary to
consider, for the purpose of determining these claims against the employer (in
the context of the claims for wages, for holidays and for statutory notice)
whether net pay as distinct from gross pay, should be allowed, whether there
should be deductions in respect of receipt of any social security benefits
received by the claimant, or whether there should be deductions in respect of
any pay received in respect of new (post-dismissal) employment. However, if
the claimant is ever able to make a successful application to the Department
for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) for payment in respect of those
debts (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor), the net pay/gross pay
issue, the issue as to whether allowance should be made for social security
payments, and the issue as to whether allowance should be made for any income
received in the course in new employment, are all matters which would then have
to be addressed.
4. As was explained during this hearing, the
position at present seems to be that the Department would not be liable, in a
statutory guarantor role, to make any payments to this claimant in respect of
wages, holiday pay or notice pay, because the respondent is not currently,
formally insolvent. It has not, for example, gone into liquidation or
administration.
5. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 3 November 2010, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
