THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  345/05	

CLAIMANT:			Fiona Neely		

RESPONDENT:		Bill Clinton
				t/a Oriel Training Services

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims for failure to provide itemised pay statements and deduction from wages are dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:			Ms Crooke	
Members:			Ms S Doran	
				Mr P McKenna

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented herself.
The respondent appeared in person and represented himself.

REASONS
1.	The Sources of Evidence

	The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant on her own behalf and from the 
	respondent on his own behalf.  The Tribunal also received the bundle of agreed
	documents.

2.	The Claim and the Defence

	The claimant claimed that she had not received her final pay slip or P45 and in 
	respect of her last week’s wages had not received payment at the rate that she 
	alleged was applicable from 1 December 2004.  The respondent denied both these 
	claims.  

3.	The Issues

	(i)	Did the respondent fail to provide an itemised pay statement?

(ii)	Was the claimant entitled to receive payment at a higher rate for the last 
	week of her employment with the respondent?

4.	Analysis of Evidence

	The Tribunal prefers the evidence given by the respondent on these points as it is 
	supported by the documentation provided in the case.

5.	Findings of Fact

	The claimant contended that she had not received an itemised pay statement in 
	respect of her final salary at 27 December 2004.  The respondent produced an 
	extract from his postbook showing that the itemised pay statement and P45 had 
	been posted to the claimant in or around 3 February 2005.

	The claimant contended that she was entitled to a salary increase from £12,200 to 
	£13,400 per annum, to take effect from 1 December 2004.  The respondent 
	contended that, while this might have been discussed, it was not discussed with the 
	claimant and 	was never formally actioned.  As the claimant’s evidence to support 
	this contention was hearsay evidence only of what her Centre Manager allegedly 
	told her, in the absence of any further objective evidence to support this contention, 
	the Tribunal is unable to find that she was entitled to payment at the higher rate for 
	the last week of her employment with the respondent.

6.	A Short Statement of the Relevant Applicable Principle of Law

	The applicable principles of law are that, under the Employment Rights (NI) Order 
	1996, Articles 40 and 45 – “A worker is entitled to receive an itemised pay 
	statement and has the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions”.

7.	The Tribunal’s Conclusions

	Having applied the relevant principle of law to the facts found for all the reasons set 
	out above,  the Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the claimant and 
	dismisses her claim.  The Tribunal was unable to find any cogent evidence to 
	support her contentions.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:   23 November 2005 and 16-17 January 2006 in Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: