Regan v SC Contractors (NI) Ltd  (Unfair Dismissal, Holiday Pay, Breach of Contract)  (11 Sep 2002)
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	01718/00

APPLICANT:		James Regan

RESPONDENT:		SC Contractors (NI) Limited

DECISION

The unanimous finding of the Tribunal is that the applications be dismissed.
Appearances:
The applicant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

Extended reasons:-

1.	There was no appearance by or on behalf of either the applicant or the respondent.  As over three quarters of an hour had elapsed from the time fixed for the hearing of the case the Tribunal considered it reasonable, in the circumstances, to deal with the matter in the absence of the parties on taking into consideration the contents of the applicant’s Originating Application and the respondent’s Notice of Appearance.  

2.	The applicant had claimed:-

1.	Unfair dismissal.

2.	Failure to pay holiday pay.

3.	Failure to supply terms and conditions

4.	Breach of contract generally.

The unfair dismissal claim had been the subject of a preliminary hearing which had resulted in a decision that the unfair dismissal claim should be dismissed.  The matters remaining for the Tribunal to deal with were, therefore, the matter of holiday pay, terms and conditions and breach of contract.

3.	The applicant’s Originating Application had suggested that he should have been paid 5 days holiday pay for Easter 2000 as he had been for Easter 1999.  It was also suggested in the applicant’s Originating Application that this was normal practice in the building trade.  The respondent’s Notice of Appearance denied that the applicant was entitled to any holiday pay since he had, in fact, received more than he was entitled to.  The Notice of Appearance further stated that the applicant’s allegations as to what he had been paid the previous year were factually incorrect and that the same arrangement had been applied to the Year 2000 that had been applied in 1999.

There was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that any contractual commitment to pay holiday pay at Easter 2000 had been breached by the respondent; there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that any other arrangement was ‘normal practice’ in the building trade; there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that there was any shortfall in the holiday pay which the applicant would have been entitled under the Working Time Regulations.

4.	The respondent alleged, in its Notice of Appearance, that a written contract of employment was supplied to the applicant.  In the absence of the parties there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that there had been any breach of the requirement to supply a written statement of particulars of employment.

5.	Applicant’s Originating Application had referred to ‘breach of contract generally’.  There was nothing in the Originating Application from which the Tribunal could identify the nature of the breach or breaches which might be involved apart from the holiday pay and written particulars issues.  Nor was there anything in the Notice of Appearance to shine any light on this aspect of the matter.

6.	In the light of the above the applicant failed to establish any grounds for the making of any Orders in respect of holiday pay, written particulars of employment or breach of contract and, as a consequence, all those claims are dismissed.

Chairman:

Date:    

Date and place of hearing:  11 September 2002, Omagh Courthouse

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: