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 >> McCavigan v Department for Employment and ... [2012] NIIT 02981_11IT (14 June 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/2981_11IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 02981_11IT, [2012] NIIT 2981_11IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2981/11
CLAIMANT: Nuala McCavigan
RESPONDENT: Department for Employment and Learning
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal (chairman sitting alone) is that the claim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting alone): Mr Travers
Appearances:
The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mr Cruikshank’s, an executive officer employed by the respondent.
REASONS
1. The claimant was employed by Keith Hamilton t/a Keith Hamilton Building Supplies from October 1995 to February 2011. Mr Hamilton was declared bankrupt on 3 June 2011 and subsequently the respondent made payments to the claimant in respect of her claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay. The claimant disputes that the payments made to her by the respondent represent her full entitlement. The claimant contends that a five day working week rather than a three day working week should have been used as the basis of the respondent’s calculations.
2. The tribunal has considered all the information available to it, including the claim form and the claimant’s email to the tribunal dated 13 November 2011. The tribunal notes that during the later period of her employment with Mr Hamilton the claimant’s working hours were adjusted contrary to her wishes and ultimately she found herself working a three day rather than a five day week. It appears from the claimant’s email that she last worked a five day week sometime around March/April 2010, almost one year before her employment with Mr Hamilton came to an end. The claimant however did not resign and continued to work for Mr Hamilton under the shorter working hours until she was made redundant.
3. The respondent calculated the claimant’s entitlement to payments on the basis of the average of her last 12 weeks pay, excluding, for the purposes of the calculation, the one week where her pay was too low at £76.71. The average weekly pay thus calculated was £254.60 and it was on this basis that the respondent made payments to the claimant.
4. In all the circumstances of the case the tribunal is satisfied that the respondent performed the calculations correctly and that the claimant has been paid her entire entitlement by the respondent. Consequently the claim is dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 27 March 2012, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
