[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Finegan v 1Research & Evaluation Services [2007] NIIT 1234_06 (25 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/1234_06.html Cite as: [2007] NIIT 1234_6, [2007] NIIT 1234_06

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

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REFS: 1234/06

1236/06

CLAIMANTS: David Finegan

Jillian Patchett

RESPONDENTS: 1. Research & Evaluation Services

2. Department for Employment and Learning

DECISION

It is the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the claims of both claimants against the respondents herein are not well founded and are hereby dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms Crooke

Members: Mr Atcheson

Mr Johnston

Appearances:

The first named claimant did not appear and did not instruct any representation. However he presented written representations which were considered by the tribunal in the course of reaching its decision.

The second named claimant appeared in person and represented herself.

The first named respondent did not appear.

The second named respondents were represented by Mrs Kathleen Dobbin and Mrs Patricia Baird.

Sources of evidence

The tribunal heard oral evidence from Ms Jillian Patchett. Additionally it had three bundles of agreed documents before it which were considered in the course of the hearing.

Claim and defence

Both claimants claimed pay in lieu of notice and arrears of unpaid wages. The second named claimant also claimed out of pocket expenses.

The first and second named respondents contested the claims on the basis that it was contended that both claimants were not employees of the first named respondent.

Facts found

1. Both claimants who were previously high ranking civil servants, were invited by Peter Ward trading as Research and Evaluation Services, to enter into private sector employment.
2. There was a dispute in the evidence between the written contentions of Mr Ward and

the Department for Employment and Learning and the oral evidence of Ms Patchett

and the representations of Mr Finegan. Both Ms Patchett and Mr Finegan contended

that they were employees of Research and Evaluation Services. Both respondents

contended that both claimants were employees of Paradigm Consulting Limited for the

following reasons:-

(a) Both claimants by letters dated 3 February 2006 and 1 March 2006 respectively accepted the position of Managing Director and Associate Director respectively in Paradigm Consulting Limited. Additionally, Mr Finegan was to receive a share of 10% in Paradigm Consulting Limited.

(b) In the only pay-slip that was provided to us in evidence, the employer was stated to be Paradigm Consulting Limited. This pay-slip was provided in evidence by Ms Patchett, who very honestly stated that she had not challenged the employer name on her pay-slip as being incorrect. On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal considers it more likely than not if Ms Patchett really believed that RES was her employer, she would have queried this with Mr Peter Ward.

(c) When the Department was notified of the claims made by employees on foot of the bankruptcy of Peter Ward, trading as Research and Evaluation Services, it carried out an inspection of wages and salaries records for the entity, Peter Ward, trading as Research and Evaluation Services. It did not find the claimants listed in the information examined as being employees of the company.

(d) As a result of this, the Department instituted a further investigation with the National Insurance Contributions Agency and in the case of both claimants, the employer was shown to be "Paradigm".

(e) Ms Patchett contended that she and indeed Mr Finegan had always

believed that they were to be employed by Mr Peter Ward, trading as

Research and Evaluation Services. To support that argument, she

pointed to the fact that they had received a contract on RES headed

paper and believed that it came from RES, even though she herself

had explicitly accepted the position with Paradigm Consulting in her

letter dated 1 March 2006. She also pointed to the fact that her salary

was paid by RES as opposed to Paradigm Consulting Limited even

though the only pay-slip she received referred to Paradigm as

employer.

Conclusions

The sole fact of RES appearing to fund both claimants' salaries, without further objective evidence is not sufficient in the view of the tribunal to permit it to find that both claimants were employed by Peter Ward, trading as RES. The tribunal finds therefore that both claimants were not employed by Research and Evaluation Services but by Paradigm Consulting Limited. Accordingly the claims are not well founded and are hereby dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 25 July 2007

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: