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 >> Ewart v James Smyth T/A Maxol Scarva R... [2010] NIIT 02131_10IT_2 (28 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/02131_10IT_2.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 2131_10IT_2, [2010] NIIT 02131_10IT_2 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1988/10
CLAIMANT: Sinead Dolan
RESPONDENT: Total Shopfitters Ltd
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £4,800.00, made up of £2,400.00 in respect of a redundancy payment and £2,400.00 in respect of a payment in lieu of notice.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr Neil Drennan QC
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Reasons
1.1 The claimant presented a claim to the tribunal on 18 August 2010, in which she made a claim for a redundancy payment and/or a payment in lieu of notice. The claim was accepted by the tribunal. A response by the respondent was required to be presented to the tribunal by 21 September 2010.
1.2 The respondent presented a response to the claimant’s claim on 25 October 2010. It was rejected, as it had been received out of time. The respondent did not make any application for a review of the decision to reject the response and did not appeal the said decision to the Court of Appeal.
2.1 Having heard evidence from the claimant, insofar as relevant and material, I found:-
(a) The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Secretary from in or about August 1999. At the date of the termination of her contract of employment, the claimant was aged 28 years and was earning £300.00 gross per week and £240.00 net per week.
(b) The claimant was expecting her first child in September 2009 and was due to go on maternity leave from in or about August 2009. At the end of July 2009, Mr Gerry Burnnagin, the Managing Director of the respondent, informed the claimant that there was, at that time, no work for the business and there was a severe loss of cash flow, as a consequence of the downturn in the business. At that time, he did not terminate the claimant’s employment with the respondent; but, having paid her wages up until the end of July 2009, he indicated to her that he hoped there would be more work obtained by the respondent between the period of her maternity leave, allowing her employment to continue following the end of her maternity leave in or about the end of April 2010.
(c) Following the end of her maternity leave, the claimant sought to resume her employment with the respondent. When, before the end of May 2010, she was able to speak to Mr Burnnagin, he explained to the claimant, despite what he had previously indicated to her, the respondent had not in fact obtained other work and had ceased trading and was not in a position to continue her employment with the respondent, following the end of her maternity leave. Further, the respondent did not have funds to pay her any redundancy payment and/or notice pay to which she was entitled.
(d) I was satisfied that the claimant’s employment was terminated, without notice, by the respondent from in or about the end of May 2010, at the time of the claimant’s conversation with Mr Burnnagin, as set out above, on the grounds that she was redundant; and, in the circumstances, I did not accept the claimant was laid off by the respondent from in or about May 2010 to 3 August 2010, when the claimant sought to resign from her employment with the respondent.
2.2 In light of the foregoing, I was satisfied that the claimant was entitled to be paid by the respondent, and I so ordered, the sum of £4,800.00, made up as follows:-
(a) Redundancy payment
8 x £300.00 £2,400.00
(b) Payment in lieu
10 x £240.00 £2,400.00
3.1 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:
