THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	2281/01
2339/01

APPLICANT:	Arthur McClay
			James Noel White

RESPONDENT:	Walter Simms t/a Abacus Painting Contractors 

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicants’ claims are dismissed.  

Appearances:
The applicants were not present nor were they represented. 
The respondent was represented by Mr W Simms.

1.	These reasons are given in summary form.

2.	The first applicant claimed for pay in lieu of notice, holiday pay and unlawful deductions.

The second applicant claimed for unfair dismissal, pay in lieu of notice, holiday pay and unlawful deductions.

The respondent denied the applicants’ claims in their entirety.

3.	The tribunal was satisfied that both applicants had been notified of the instant hearing.  In the absence of the applicants the tribunal decided to hear the matter.

4.	The tribunal made the following findings:-

(a)	The first applicant was employed as a painter and decorator from August 1999 to 13 April 2001.

The second applicant was employed as a painter and decorator from 1 June 2000 to 13 April 2001.

(b)	Both applicants worked their notice and were paid for their work.  Accordingly that aspect of their claims is dismissed.

(c)	The applicants claim for unpaid holiday pay.  The respondent gave evidence that his accountant paid to the applicants their holiday pay.  Accordingly the tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants did not receive holiday pay due to them and that aspect of their claim is dismissed.

(d)	While the respondent admitted that all income, tax and national insurance contributions deducted by the respondent were not paid to the appropriate authorities the applicants’ claims did not contain sufficient information to enable the tribunal to quantify the applicants’ claims for unlawful deductions.  Accordingly the claims for unlawful deductions are dismissed.

(e)	The second applicant’s claim for unpaid wages is dismissed.  The second applicant did not quantify the claim.  Further the respondent gave evidence that his wages had been paid to him.

(f)	The second applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed as he lacked the necessary period of continuous employment to bring such a claim and his application did not fall into any of the exceptions.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing:  26 September 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: