 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Lucas v Fisher Metal Group Limited (in... [2010] NIIT 198_10IT (11 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/198_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 198_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 198/10
CLAIMANT: Trevor Stanley Lucas
RESPONDENT: 1. Fisher Metal Group Limited (in administrative
receivership)
2. Fisher Metal Engineering LLP (formerly known as
WR Fisher LLP)
DECISION
(A) The claimant’s redundancy pay claim against Fisher Metal Group Limited (“the old employer”) is not well-founded and it is dismissed.
(B) The claimant’s redundancy payment claim against Fisher Metal Engineering LLP (“the new employer”) is well-founded and it is declared that the new employer is obliged to pay to the claimant a redundancy payment of £5,250.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Buggy
Members: Mr 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 Solicitor’s Office.
REASONS
1.
At the end of the 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.
Although the claimant was not
present or represented, he did make written representations, in the form of a
letter dated 14 October 2010, which he sent to the Secretary of the tribunals.
In arriving at this decision, we took account of what was contained in the 14
October 2010 letter, and in its enclosures. In the same connection, we took
account of what is asserted in the response which was presented in these
proceedings on behalf of the new employer.
3.
In the letter of 14 October 2010,
the claimant asserts that he was entitled to notice pay and to holiday pay,
which are still due to him. However, the claim form in these proceedings only
makes a claim in respect of a redundancy payment. Accordingly, this Decision
has been made only in respect of that redundancy payment claim.
4.
The old employer has never been
represented in relation to these proceedings. The new employer was initially
represented by Russells Solicitors (of Great Victoria Street, Belfast), but
ultimately ceased to be represented by anybody in these proceedings.
5.
We are satisfied that the
claimant was employed at a business at 1 Hallstown Road, Ballinderry Upper, Co Antrim,
from 1 January 1999 until 15 July 2009; that he was then made redundant by the
new employer; that when he was first employed in that business, he was employed
there by the old employer; that he continued to be employed by that old
employer there until the relevant entity was the subject of a TUPE transfer, in
May 2009; and that he was thereafter employed there by the new employer. We
are also satisfied that the claimant was born in October 1955.
6.
Both the claimant and the
Department are agreed that there was a TUPE transfer of the business in which
the claimant was employed; whereby the relevant entity (an entity to which the
claimant was assigned in the summer of 2009) had been transferred to the new
employer. We are satisfied that those contentions are correct. We are
satisfied that, in the summer of 2009, the new employer started to pay the
claimant’s wages and that the old employer ceased to pay his wages. We are
satisfied, that beforehand and afterwards, the claimant was carrying out the
same work, at the same premises, and under the same immediate supervision; and that,
both beforehand and afterwards, he was producing outputs which were relevant in
the context of services which were being provided in respect of the same circle
of customers.
7.
This is a Decision which may
result in a payment out of the National Insurance Fund (if the new employer
does not pay the redundancy payment which we have decided is due to the
claimant). Accordingly, the Department was entitled under the Industrial Tribunals
Rules of Procedure to participate in the main hearing to the same extent as it
would have been entitled to participate if it had been a party to these
proceedings. That was the basis upon which the Department participated, at the
main hearing, in these proceedings.
8. 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: