THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	132/10

CLAIMANT:			Mark Roberts

RESPONDENT:	Fisher Metal Engineering LLP (formerly known as 
 WR Fisher LLP)

DECISION
The claimant’s claim in respect of a redundancy payment is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall make a redundancy payment to the claimant of £1,050.  

Constitution of  Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mr P Buggy
Members:		Ms N Wright
			Dr D Mercer

Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.

There was no appearance on behalf of either of the employers.  

The Department was represented by Mr P McAteer, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitors Office.

REASONS

1.	We are satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent in the autumn of 2009 and that he was then dismissed by reason of redundancy.  We are satisfied that the respondent never made a redundancy payment to the claimant.  

2.	The claimant was originally employed by Fisher Metal Group Limited (“the old employer”), which went into administrative receivership in the summer of 2009.  Soon afterwards, the claimant received notification from “the new employer” (the respondent to these proceedings) that he was to be placed on temporary lay-off.  The claimant was never subsequently told, either orally or in writing, either by the old employer or by the new employer, to resume work.  He did receive his P45, later during 2009, from the administrative receiver of the old employer.

3.	The claimant made applications to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) in its role as the statutory guarantor in respect of redundancy pay, and in respect of certain other employment debts.  Those applications were refused.  

4.	In this Decision, we have now decided that a redundancy payment was due from the new employer.  Therefore, the claimant  may now consider it to be appropriate   either  to make a fresh application to the Department (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor in respect of redundancy payments), or to make fresh contact with the Department in respect of his earlier applications to them. 

5.	This Decision relates to the claimant’s redundancy pay entitlement as against his employers. Therefore, this is a Decision which may ultimately involve a payment out of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.  Accordingly, the Department was entitled to appear at this hearing  as if it where a party to these proceedings, and it was entitled to be heard at the main hearing of these proceedings, just as if it had been a party.  (See Rule 51 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005).  That was the basis upon which Mr McAteer, on behalf of the Department,  participated in this hearing.

6.	On behalf of the Department, Mr McAteer drew our attention to the content of an application form which the claimant had completed when he was making the  applications to the Department  which we have already referred to above. In arriving at our ultimate conclusions in this case, we took account of the contents of that application; we also took account of the contents of the claimant’s claim form in these proceedings, and of the contents of a response which had been submitted on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings.  

7.	On the basis of all of the documentary information, we noted that the claimant was born in 1980.  We are sure that he had been employed in the relevant entity (the business at 1 Hallstown Road, Lisburn, which was first run by the old employer and which was immediately afterwards run by the new employer) continuously for at least a period of four full years,  but we are not sure whether he was employed there for a period of five full years.  Accordingly, we have awarded compensation in this case on the basis that the claimant was employed in the entity only for four years.  (If we are wrong about that matter, the claimant can apply for review of our decision, provided he does so in writing, within 14 days of the date on which this Decision is issued).

8.	We are satisfied  that there has been a TUPE transfer, whereby the relevant entity  (the  entity to which the claimant was assigned in the summer of 2009) was  transferred from the old employer to the new employer.  

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	21 October 2010, Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: