THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  4751/09

CLAIMANT: 			 Trevor Cooke

RESPONDENT: 		Belfast Brake Specialist Ltd.

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:       	Ms F Oliver

Members: 		Mr J Hall
	      		Mr P McKenna	 

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr G Purvis, BL instructed by Messrs. Gerald P Henvey Solicitors.

Messrs. G and T Beggs attended on behalf of the respondent.

1. 	Sources of Evidence

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mr McCarron on behalf of the claimant and from Mr G Beggs on behalf of the respondent.
The tribunal was provided with two bundles of documents.

2. 	The Claim and the Defence

The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent claimed that the claimant had left their employment of his own volition.

3. 	The Issue

The issue to be determined by the tribunal is whether the claimant was dismissed by the respondent.  The claimant states that at a meeting with the managing directors on 16 January 2009, he was told that he was being laid off on the following Friday 23 January 2009.  He states that he was not told that this was a temporary layoff.  The respondent states that the claimant was given an option of taking a temporary pay cut or temporary layoff.  When he did not make a choice, he was informed that it would be a temporary layoff from 23 January 2009.  The respondent states that the claimant refused to agree to a temporary lay off and stated that if he finished on Friday 23 January 2009, he would not be back.  He left on 23 January 2009 and did not return to their employment.

4.	Analysis of the Evidence

The evidence given by the respondent’s witness was consistent and credible. We were not impressed by the evidence from the claimant.  His answers were evasive and self serving.  As an example, we did not accept that the signed contract exhibited to the tribunal had not actually been signed by the claimant as he claimed.  The claimant was also evasive about his employment since finishing work with the respondent.  The version of events as explained by the respondent had a ring of truth to it and was corroborated by the fact that all other employees agreed to temporary financial deductions in the hope of keeping the business going.  There was nothing in the evidence of the respondent to suggest that they wanted to get rid of the claimant.  Quite the contrary, they said they were sorry and surprised to lose him and we accept this evidence.

5.	Findings of Fact

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 1 July 1987.  When his employment ended on 23 January 2009, he was working part time earning £120.00 per week.

The company is a small family business with two brothers Gary and Roy Beggs as managing directors.  There were two other full time employees, Mr Niblock and Mr Mc Mullen, and one part time employee, the claimant.

Like many other businesses in the current economic climate, the business found itself in financial difficulties and started to explore ways of saving costs.

On 16 January the managing directors spoke to the three members of staff about temporary ways to save costs.  Mr Niblock and Mr McMullen agreed to a temporary pay cut along with the managing directors themselves.  The claimant was asked to consider a temporary lay off in accordance with his contract. The claimant was informed that the temporary lay-off would commence on the following Friday 23 January 2009.

The claimant responded by saying that if he walked out the door the following Friday, he would not be back.

The respondent attempted to persuade the claimant to change his mind during the following week of work but the claimant remained determined to leave on 23 January 2009.

The claimant left work on 23 January 2009 and did not return to work for the respondent.

6.	The Law

Article 126 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 gives an employee the right not to be unfairly dismissed.

It is up to the claimant to prove that he was dismissed

7. 	Application of the Law and Findings of fact to the Issues.

The tribunal concludes that the claimant was not dismissed from his employment.  He left voluntarily.

A reasonable employer was entitled to construe the claimant’s words and actions as a resignation.

We therefore dismiss the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 	14 September 2009, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: