THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:    1650/10

CLAIMANT:	Tracey-Ann Boyd

RESPONDENT:	Rubbertec International Limited

DECISION

(A)	The claimant’s claim in respect of unpaid wages is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £713 in respect of unpaid wages.

(B)	The claimant’s claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £362 in respect of holiday pay.

(C)	The claimant’s claim for notice pay is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,640 in respect of notice pay.

(D)	The claimant’s redundancy pay claim is well-founded.  It is declared that the claimant is entitled to £3,290 redundancy payment from the respondent.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mr P Buggy
Members:		Mr I Carroll
			Mr J Welsh

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

REASONS

1.	It was clear to us that the proper title of the respondent is as specified above.  Accordingly, we amended the title of the respondent, in these proceedings, in order to reflect that reality.  At the end of this hearing, we issued our decision orally.  At the same time, we gave oral reasons for our decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

2.	In these proceedings, the claimant claims all of the sums specified above.  On the basis of the claimant’s claim form, on the basis of her oral testimony, and on the basis of a letter dated 5 May 2010 from the respondent, we were satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent company, that she was entitled to the sums claimed by her in these proceedings, and that those sums have not been paid to her.

3.	As was explained during the course of this hearing, the position is as follows.  The respondent has not defended these proceedings.  In their letter of 5 May 2010, the respondent in effect admits liability in respect of the sums which are claimed in respect of wages and accrued holiday entitlement.  In the circumstances, it has been unnecessary to consider, for the purpose of determining these claims against the employer (in the context of the claims for wages, for holidays and for statutory notice) whether net pay, as distinct from gross pay, should be allowed, whether there should be deductions in respect of receipt of any social security benefits received by the claimant, or whether there should be deductions in respect of any pay received in respect of new (post-dismissal) employment.  However, if the claimant is ever able to make a successful application to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) for payment in respect of those debts (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor), the net pay/gross pay issue, the issue as to whether allowance should be made for social security payments, and the issue as to whether allowance should be made for any income received in the course in new employment, are all matters which would then have to be addressed.

4.	As was explained during this hearing, the position at present seems to be that the Department would not be liable, in a statutory guarantor role, to make any payments to this claimant in respect of wages, holiday pay or notice pay, because the respondent is not currently, formally insolvent.  It has not, for example, gone into liquidation or administration.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	3 November 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: