[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Brown v Mosaic UK Home Service Ltd & Ors [2006] NIIT 461_05 (04 January 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/461_05.html Cite as: [2006] NIIT 461_5, [2006] NIIT 461_05

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

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 461/05

CLAIMANT: Thomas Brown

RESPONDENTS: 1. Mosaic UK Home Service Ltd

2. Redundancy Payments Service

3. Redundancy Payments Service

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is as follows:-

(i) that the second-named respondent (ie Secretary of State, Redundancy Payments Service, Watford) and the third-named respondent (Redundancy Payments Service, Belfast) be dismissed from the proceedings;

(ii) that the complaint has been presented to the tribunal within a period which the tribunal considers reasonable, the tribunal being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented during the period of three months beginning on the date on which the last of the dismissals to which the complaint relates took effect; and

(iii) that the tribunal declares that the complaint made under Article 217 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 is well-founded, and it is ordered that the first-named respondent shall pay to the claimant a protective award for the period of 90 days, pursuant to Article 217(2), (3) and (4) of the 1996 Order.

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The first-named respondent did not enter an appearance, and did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.

The second-named respondent was not represented, but by letter of 20 December 2005, submitted written representations.

The third-named respondent was represented by Ms K Dobbin.

1. The name of the first-named respondent is amended to that now shown, which appears to be the correct name of the company.

2.	(i)	Having regard to Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written submission of 20 December 2005, on behalf of the second-named respondent, the second-named respondent is dismissed from the proceedings.
	(ii)	The third-named respondent is also dismissed from the proceedings. The first-named respondent is a company registered in Great Britain.

2. The claim is for a protective award, pursuant to Articles 216 – 220 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
3. In the circumstances of this case, the tribunal is satisfied that the time for presentation of the complaint should be extended.
4. The second-named respondent, in the concise and helpful submissions of 20 December 2005, provided a copy of a decision of an Employment Tribunal for London Central issued on 20 July 2004. That decision sets out the background to the case, the relevant facts, and the applicable corresponding law in England and Wales. No useful purpose would be served by rehearsing these matters again.
5. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant's complaint is well-founded. It is further satisfied that, in the circumstances, the appropriate length of the protected period should be 90 days.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 4 January 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: