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 >> Chan v Winnie Magee So (Shirley) Chan [2012] NIIT 00082_12IT (30 March 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/00082_12IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 00082_12IT, [2012] NIIT 82_12IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 82/12
453/12
(Counterclaim)
CLAIMANTS: So (Shirley) Chan
Winnie Magee (Counterclaim)
RESPONDENTS: 1. Winnie Magee
2. So (Shirley) Chan
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is as follows:-
(i) The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £670.80 in respect of unlawful deductions from her wages.
(ii) The claimant’s claim for holiday pay is dismissed.
(iii) The respondent’s counterclaim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent appeared in person and was not represented.
1(i) The tribunal orders that the respondent do pay to the claimant the sum of £670.80 in respect of unlawful deductions from wages.
(ii) In the course of the hearing it became clear that the respondent did not deny that wages were owing for the period from 10 October 2011 – 2 November 2011. The only issue for the tribunal was to quantify the net amount of such wages.
2 The claimant’s claim for holiday pay for the week 18 – 22 July 2011 is dismissed. The respondent’s case, which I find more probable, is that the claimant took unauthorised leave on that occasion. There is documentary evidence that a similar situation had arisen the previous year, and the claimant only appears to have raised the issue of this alleged non-payment in November 2011 when her employment terminated.
3 I dismiss the respondent’s counterclaim. She assessed the value of this at £19,000.00. Bearing in mind that the claimant was employed as a Cutter who, irrespective of the actual circumstances in which her employment terminated, could lawfully have resigned by giving one week’s notice, the respondent’s case in respect of the counterclaim is somewhat disingenuous. It is also unsupported by any credible evidence.
4. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 28 March 2012, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
