THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	2862/04

					

CLAIMANT:		Alan James Hoy	

RESPONDENTS:	1.	Richard Nash
			2.	Sunrise Ltd			 

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the second respondent do pay to the claimant the sum of £2,466.24 by way of unpaid wages. 

Appearances:
The claimant attended in person and represented himself.
The respondents did not attend and were not represented. 

REASONS

1.	The claimant claimed that, at the time of the termination of his employment he had been unpaid for a period of two months.  The issue for the tribunal was whether the respondents or either of them were in breach of any contract for the payment of wages with the claimant or whether there had been any unlawful deduction made from payments due to the claimant.

2.	The respondents did not appear and had not lodged any notice of appearance with the tribunal.  The tribunal considered it appropriate to deal with the matter in their absence.  According to the claimant’s evidence, which the tribunal accepted, he was employed by the second respondent which was controlled by the first respondent.  He had previously been employed by a company called Bromac.   When it ceased to trade he, along with a number of other staff were employed by a new company Sunrise Limited.  The arrangement was that he would receive the same wage as he had received with Bromac, namely £2,083.33 per month.  The claimant produced pay slips demonstrating that from the beginning of April 2004 until the end of June 2004 he was receiving that sum as his gross monthly wage.  It was clear to all in July of 2004 that business was not going well.  The first respondent spoke to the claimant and told him that he could not afford to pay him for July but to hold on.  The first respondent was hopeful that finance would become available to enable him to continue trading.  In the middle of August a meeting was held between the first respondent and a number of staff when it was indicated that they should not come to work for the time being due to the lack of trade but that the first respondent would let them know what was happening shortly.  The claimant rang the first respondent a few days later to see what was happening with the business.  The first respondent indicated that he had decided that there was no point in carrying on but that he hoped to start again.  He agreed to pay the claimant until the end of August.  At that time the claimant was called to the payment office to get his pay slips and a P45.  He was handed a pay slip for July which was calculated on a sum lower than the £2,083.33 he had been receiving and a further pay slip for August showing an even lower sum.  He was also given a P45.  However, he was not given any cheque for any cash and had received nothing since.  The claimant made clear that he had taken the holidays he was due and that no issue arose as to holidays or as to notice.  His concern was only about the unpaid wages.  

3.	The tribunal is satisfied on the claimant’s evidence that he received no pay for the months of July and August, that he was entitled to be paid at the rate of £2,083.33 gross for each of those months and, accordingly, the second respondent should be ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £2,466.24,  being the net sum after deductions attributable to that gross payment.

4.	Recoupment

No question of recoupment arises.

5.	This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

    

	
Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	13 April 2005, Belfast.			

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: