THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	235/02

	
					
CLAIMANT:		Roy Clarke	

RESPONDENT:	Galen			 

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages are dismissed. 

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented. 
The respondent was represented by Mr S. Crothers of Brangam Bagnall & Co., Solicitors. 

1.	The claimant had not contacted the tribunal and there was no explanation for his absence.

2.	The claimant alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed, that he had not received notice pay (breach of contract), and that he had not received shift allowance while suspended on full pay from 6 September 2001 to 22 October 2001 (unauthorised deductions from wages).  The respondent alleged that the claimant had not been dismissed; he had resigned.

3.	The tribunal determined and Mr Crothers agreed, that pursuant to Regulation 15(4) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 2005, Rules 27(5) and (6) and 14(2) and (3) of Schedule 1 to those Regulations were applicable to this case.  The Court of Appeal in the case of Roberts –v- Skelmersdale College [2004] IRLR 69 emphasised that a tribunal in this situation must consider the documents which were referred to in the Rules.  In the present case Rule 27(6) refers to “any information in it’s possession which has been made available to it by the parties”.  The tribunal had been furnished with copies of letters dated 10 September 2001 and 24 October 2001 from the claimant and a letter dated 31 July 2002 from Gus Campbell who was then acting for the claimant.

4.	The tribunal heard evidence from Dr Sloan and Mr Barnes on behalf of the respondent.

5.	In relation to the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal, after considering the pleadings, the correspondence referred to above and the evidence of Dr Sloan concluded that the claimant had resigned on 22 October 2001 by handing in a letter of resignation to Dr Sloan.  The respondent had at that time, we believe, concluded that it was going to dismiss the claimant but that dismissal had not been effected before the resignation letter was accepted by the respondent.  The tribunal therefore dismisses the unfair dismissal complaint.  The IT1 does not contain any complaint of constructive dismissal and there has been no application to amend it.  The tribunal also dismisses the breach of contract claim for notice pay.

6.	Mr Barnes gave evidence that the shift allowance had been paid to the claimant while he was on suspension and the tribunal accepts that evidence.  The claim in respect of shift allowance is therefore dismissed.

7.	This decision was given orally at the hearing in accordance with Rule 28(2).

 	
Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	18 April 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: