[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Sheils v McKenna (t/a Aveda @ Akqua) (Employment rights) [2002] NIIT 2159_01 (2 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/135.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 2159_1, [2002] NIIT 2159_01

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


Sheils v McKenna (t/a Aveda @ Akqua) (Employment rights) [2002] NIIT 2159_01 (2 October 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2159/01

APPLICANT: Alana Claire Sheils

RESPONDENT: Lorna McKenna

T/a Aveda @ Akqua

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application is dismissed except in so far as the tribunal declares that the respondent failed to give the applicant an itemised pay statement as required under Article 40 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996.

Appearances:

Mr M Canavan appeared and made an application to come off record for the applicant. The applicant did not appear.

The respondent was represented by Mr J Hassan.

1. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The solicitor on record for her applied to the tribunal to come off record, since the applicant had failed to communicate with him despite messages having been left for her on various occasions over the last six weeks. The tribunal acceded to this request.
2. The respondent applied to the tribunal to dismiss the application in view of the applicant's failure to appear. The tribunal, having considered the originating application and the Notice of Appearance decided that it was appropriate to dismiss the application, except in so far as the application related to the respondent's failure to provide an itemised pay statement as required by Article 40 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996.
3. The tribunal considered that this was the appropriate course, for the following reasons:

(a) The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal in view of the applicant's period of continuous employment.

(b) In respect of the other complaints, there is no information upon which the tribunal could conclude that the complaints had been substantiated.

(c) In respect of the applicant's complaint that she did not receive an itemised pay statement, the respondent conceded in her Notice of Appearance that such a statement as required under Article 40 was not provided to the applicant.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 2 October 2002, Londonderry

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: