THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	6081/09

CLAIMANT:		            Sean Reel

RESPONDENT:	            Andras House Limited			 

DECISION 
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and orders the respondent to pay compensation to the claimant in the sum of £10, 883.60

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:		Ms J Knight

Members:		Mr J Boyd 
			Mrs T Kelly

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Neil Richards, Barrister-at-Law instructed by McCartan Turkington Breen Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr Tom Sheridan of Peninsula Business Services Limited 

1.	Issues

The issues for the tribunal were:-

a)	Did the respondent comply with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures?

b)	Was the claimant unfairly dismissed contrary to Articles 130 and 130A of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996? 

c)	And if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

The Tribunal considered the claim form, the response, the oral evidence of the witnesses for the Respondent, Mr Mike Gatt, Ms Deborah Galloway and Mr Scott Bauman, the claimant, Mr Sean Reel together with documentation and a Schedule of Loss both agreed between the parties. 

2.	Findings of Fact.

(1)	The claimant was employed by the respondent Andras House Limited in the Ramada Hotel from the 24 November 2007 until his dismissal on the 4 March 2009. He was employed initially as Bars Manager and was promoted in March 2008 to the position of Food and Beverages Manager with responsibility for managing staff in the hotel bars and restaurants. His line manager was Mr Mike Gatt, Operations Manager, who in turn reported to the General Manager of the Ramada Hotel, Mr Scott Bauman.  Mr Bauman, Mr Gatt and Ms Deborah Galloway, Assistant General Manager comprised the senior management team in the Ramada Hotel. Mr Bauman told the tribunal that Ms Galloway had lesser seniority than both himself and Mr Gatt. The claimant’s contract of employment provided that he would normally be required to work 40 hours per week at the Ramada Hotel, Shaw’s Bridge, Belfast but that he may be required to work at other hotels/businesses owned by the company.  The claimant was paid £500.00 gross (£374.00 net) per week and was thirty eight years old at the effective date of termination.

(2)	The Ramada Hotel belongs to a group of hospitality businesses owned by the respondent company, lead by a senior management team based at Andras House. Mr Lee Madden is the Group Operations Manager. The respondent experienced financial difficulties throughout the group as a whole due to the present economic downturn. It was necessary to make costs savings within the group businesses and Mr Bauman was asked to reduce costs in the Ramada Hotel by approximately £100, 000.  Mr Bauman drew up proposals on 5 January 2009 to make the positions of Food and Beverages (F & B) Manager, Conferences and Banqueting Day Manager and Conferences and Banqueting (C & B) Manager redundant. He considered that the F & B and C & B departments were top heavy with managers and supervisors and that there was no need for these posts. He proposed to make further savings by a reduction in staff hours and non replacement of staff. He estimated that this would achieve savings in the region of £101, 000 or £8341.00 per month. He tasked Mr Gatt to implement these proposals. Mr Gatt began a redundancy consultation process with the claimant from the F&B department and all staff within the C & B department.

(3)	Mr Gatt met with the claimant on the 23 January 2009.  Ms Lorraine Walker, Human Resources Coordinator was present and made notes.   Mr Gatt told the claimant that the respondent anticipated having to make redundancies due to a downturn in business throughout the group and that it was likely that the Food and Beverages Manager position was at risk of redundancy.  He informed him  that over the next few weeks they would consult with him and look at alternatives to redundancy and invited the claimant’s proposals and suggestions which he said would be discussed at the next meeting.  He advised the claimant that he would be sent “at risk” letter. On 26 January 2009 Mr Gatt wrote to the claimant giving notice that his position was at risk, of his potential redundancy and inviting him to a further consultation meeting. The claimant was advised of his right to be accompanied either by a fellow employee or a Trade Union Official.   The claimant was accompanied at subsequent meetings with Mr Gatt by Ms Geraldine Alexander of NIPSA.  Ms Walker was also in attendance at the meetings and took notes. The tribunal accepted that although not a verbatim account the notes accurately reflected what occurred at the meetings. 

(4)	A second meeting took place on 6 February 2009. The claimant asked why his position had been targeted for redundancy. Mr Gatt reiterated the financial position across the hotel group and explained that in reaching the decision it was taken into account that there were eight Assistant Managers and Supervisors within the F&B Department and that these roles could be adjusted if the claimant’s position was made redundant.  He advised the purpose of the meeting was to explain to the claimant ways of avoiding his redundancy and to give him an opportunity to come up with possible solutions.  He informed the claimant that the respondent company had a system of “bumping” whereby the claimant, if suitably qualified, could take the job of a person with lesser service, who would then be made redundant instead of the claimant.  He said that there was a list of employees who came after him in the company but he could not disclose the information because it contained personal information.  The claimant sought clarification as to who had made the decision and why only his post had been identified as for potentially redundancy in the F& B Department, whereas all of the staff from the C & B Department had been consulted.  Mr Gatt said that he would obtain this information but reiterated that the aim of the present process was to avoid a redundancy.  Mr Gatt suggested that the respondent wished to find costs savings solutions quickly and invited the claimant come up with some solutions for saving his wage.  The claimant agreed that he would try to come up with proposals for cutbacks to avoid his post being made redundant.  

(5)	A further meeting took place on the 11 February between the claimant and Mr Gatt. The claimant suggested that it would be possible to make savings of more than £30,000 and preserve his position within the F & B Department without affecting service delivery. His proposal was to make the positions of Assistant Restaurant Manager and Bar Manager redundant. He suggested that he could perform the combined duties of the post holders, who both had lesser service than him, as he had experience of carrying out a variety of roles within the department. He considered that this would amount to “bumping” the two post holders. Mr Gatt told the claimant that his proposals would be considered and a further meeting arranged.

(6)	Mr Gatt met with the claimant again on 16 February 2009 and told the claimant that in response to his proposal, consideration had been given to the possibility that the same savings might be achieved by making other positions within the F & B department redundant. He told the claimant if he were performing the duties of these posts, the position of Food and Beverage Manager would “disappear”, although he would still be carrying out a reasonably senior role and that his job title could be “Restaurants Manager”.  Ms Alexander sought clarification of the salary and status and job description of the role and confirmation that the claimant would still be Senior Head of Department.  The meeting adjourned for a short period to enable Mr Gatt to speak to Mr Bauman. When the meeting resumed Mr Gatt informed the claimant that “if this goes ahead”, the title of the post would be Restaurant Manager with the same salary as his current position and that his role “would entail every aspect within the hotel as Duty Manager, Early Manager, Late Manager, breakfast, dinners, restaurant and any other duties we are asking for within the hotel”.  The claimant received this information enthusiastically and requested confirmation of the terms in writing. The tribunal is satisfied that the suggestion of the role of Restaurant Manager came from Mr Gatt and although a firm offer was not made, Mr Gatt gave the impression to the claimant that this proposal had support from both himself and Mr Bauman. He was certainly aware that as far as the claimant was concerned it was a “done deal”.

(7)	Mr Gatt asked to meet with the claimant again on the 25 February 2009. The claimant did not ask Ms Alexander to accompany him on that occasion as he believed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss further the role of Restaurant Manager. Instead Mr Gatt told him that the proposal of Restaurant Manager had been rejected by “Senior Management” within the company. Mr Bauman told the Tribunal that he personally had taken the decision to terminate the claimant’s contract of employment but the claimant was not informed of this fact.  Mr Gatt went on to say that the role of “Restaurant Manager” was “fictitious”, it was not possible to create a new role without advertising it on the “open market” and it was not possible for the claimant to bump more than one person in the F & B Department.  In addition it was not considered viable for one person working a forty hour week to provide cover for the loss of eighty hours which would result from making two posts redundant. When the claimant expressed his shock and disappointment at what he considered to be backtracking by the respondent, Mr Gatt repeated that it had been simply a proposal which was now rejected.  The claimant asked what was proposed for him now and was told Mr Gatt could not make a proposal, but that the claimant could request to have the Assistant Restaurant Manager’s position because of his length of service. The claimant asked whether this was the only alternative and  Mr Gatt said “that is one of the possibilities, I don’t know you could probably bump anyone within this hotel with shorter service than you within the company..”.  The claimant asked for the reasons for the rejection of the proposal to be put to him in writing so that he could seek advice.  He said that he intended to ask for another meeting so he could put forward further proposals.  The tribunal accepted that the claimant left the meeting in the expectation that he would be provided with further information and a further meeting to be arranged.  

(8)	On the 4 March 2009 Mr Gatt handed the claimant a letter signed by him terminating the claimant’s employment with immediate effect due to redundancy.  It was indicated that a payment would be made in compensation for notice not being given in accordance with the terms of his contract. The claimant was informed that he had the right to appeal against the decision to Mr Bauman. The claimant wrote to Mr Bauman on the 7 March advising of his wish to appeal against the decision to terminate his employment and again on the 11 March 2009 in which he requested certain information relating to the decision to make him redundant to enable him to prepare for the appeal.

(9)	An appeal hearing was arranged for the 24 March 2009 at Andras House which was to be conducted by Mr Madden, the respondent’s Group Operations Manager.  The claimant was accompanied by Ms Geraldine Alexander.  Mr Madden advised at the outset that the hearing would take the form of a complete re-examination of the entire consultation and selection process, if appropriate.  Ms Alexander pointed out that the claimant had not yet received a response to his request for further information from Mr Bauman and she objected to Mr Madden hearing the appeal because the claimant believed, in view of what he had been told by Mr Gatt, that Mr Madden, as a member of the senior management team at Andras House, had been involved in the decision to declare the post and the claimant as the post holder redundant.  She suggested that an independent appeal should be conducted by the Labour Relations Agency. Mr Madden denied that he had been involved in the decision making process leading to the claimant’s dismissal but he agreed to adjourn the hearing to enable a response to be given to the claimant’s request for information and to consider the proposal that the Labour Relations Agency should be asked to conduct the appeal.  Mr Madden wrote to the claimant on 3 April 2009 advising that it was not company policy to bring in an external agency to take part in the respondent’s internal processes.  He advised that the Appeal Hearing had been rescheduled on the 15 April 2009 and would be chaired by Ms Galloway, Assistant General Manager of the Ramada Hotel.

(10)	The claimant was again accompanied at the reconvened appeal by Ms Alexander who asserted that the claimant was disadvantaged because he still had not received a reply to his letter of 11 March 2009. Ms Galloway told them that she was unable to provide any of the information but that she would hear the appeal, take on board the questions and get back to the claimant at a later date.  Ms Anderson then raised an issue as to whether it was appropriate for Ms Galloway as the Assistant General Manager to hear the appeal.  Ms Galloway adjourned the meeting and discussed these matters with Mr Bauman. She told him that she felt uncomfortable about conducting the appeal due to her lack of experience in dealing with process and her lack of seniority within the company.  Ms Galloway told the tribunal that Mr Bauman appeared to be angry and insisted that she conduct the appeal.  Therefore she resumed the appeal and advised that a response to his letter would be posted out to the claimant that afternoon and that she would conduct the hearing and be the sole decision maker on the appeal.  Ms Anderson made submissions which included that the claimant had been unfairly selected for redundancy, that he had been treated in an unfair, inconsistent and totally unacceptable manner and that the respondent had not operated a fair procedure not only in terms of selection but the pool of employees to be considered.  She further contended that there was no redundancy situation,  that the respondent had not tried to avoid redundancy and had not been genuine about offering the claimant suitable alternative employment. She submitted that the respondent had acted unfairly in withdrawing an offer of the post of Restaurant Manager. Ms Galloway said that she would consider her decision and get back to them in due course.  At the end of the meeting she handed a copy of Mr Bauman’s response dated 8 April 2009 to the claimant. This stated that the decision to make the post of F & B Manager redundant was made on the 5 January 2009 by “senior management” and the decision subsequently to terminate the claimant’s employment again was reached by “senior management”.  

(11)	Ms Galloway met with Ms Walker on the 29 April 2009 and reviewed the minutes of the meetings between the claimant and Mr Gatt.  She interviewed Mr Bauman on the 5 May 2009 and he confirmed that he had made his decision to make the post of F & B manager redundant in January 2009 due to the economic downturn.  She again asked him why she was chosen to chair the Appeal Hearing as it was her belief that it should have been someone more senior within the company.  She recorded in her interview notes that Mr Bauman confirmed that she was in fact in a position to carry out the appeal; that adequate information was provided to the claimant throughout the process, that during the consultation process the claimant was offered current vacancies within the group, “bumping” and voluntary redundancy, all of which he refused.  Ms Galloway concluded that Mr Gatt did initially suggest the role of Restaurant Manager to the claimant but it was just an idea or proposal. Ms Galloway therefore wrote to the claimant on 15 May 2009 confirming that she upheld Mr Gatt’s decision. During cross examination Ms Galloway told the tribunal that it was probably in her best interests to uphold the decision to dismiss the claimant.

(12)	The claimant lodged a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Industrial Tribunal on the 25 May 2009. It was contended that there had been a failure by the respondent to comply with the statutory dismissal procedures, and further that the dismissal was substantively and otherwise procedurally unfair. The respondent’s response contended that the dismissal was fair and that the claimant was dismissed because a redundancy situation had arisen due to a downturn of business and that the claimant’s contract of employment was terminated as a final measure as it had already implemented all viable alternatives in an effort to reduce its costs within the organisation with no material financial rewards and also due to the claimant’s refusal to accept alternative employment within the respondent company. It was contended that there had been adequate consultation with the claimant prior to the decision to dismiss him. 
(13)	Since his dismissal the claimant has obtained employment as a Manager/Barman at the Gaelic Athletic Club and applied unsuccessfully for other posts. Mr Sheridan accepted that the claimant has sought to mitigate his loss.
3.	The Law

An employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer pursuant to Article 126 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order) as amended. 

Article 130 of the 1996 Order provides that in determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show— 

(a)	the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and

(b) 	that it is either a reason falling within paragraph (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

(2) A reason falls within this paragraph if it— 

... (c)   is that the employee was redundant....

Where an employer shows that the reason for the dismissal is potentially fair,  Article 130(4) of the provides that “the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer)—

(a)  	depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and

(b) 	shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.”

Article 130A of the 1996 Order provides that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if an employer wholly or mainly fails to complete the three steps in the standard statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.  If an employer is considering making an employee redundant, they must follow the steps of the statutory dismissal procedure and; firstly, write to the employee setting out the circumstances which leads the employer to contemplate dismissing the employee and inviting him to a meeting; secondly,  hold a meeting with the employee before action is taken and afterwards notify the employee of the decision and of the right to appeal against the decision if he is not satisfied with it; and thirdly, if the employee informs the employer of his wish to appeal, the employer must invite him to attend a further meeting.

In  Alexander v Brigden Enterprises Ltd [2006] ICR 1277 the EAT held that the statutory dismissal procedures are not concerned with the reasonableness of the employer’s grounds nor the basis of those grounds in themselves. At this stage the focus is on what the employer is proposing to do and why he is proposing to do it, rather than how reasonable it is for him to be doing it at all. Step 1 of the standard procedure required the employer simply to set out in writing the grounds in broad terms which lead him to contemplate dismissing the employee, together with an invitation to attend a meeting. Step 2 provides that the employer must inform the employee of the basis for the ground or grounds given in the statement. This information need not be in writing and may be given orally. In redundancy dismissals step 2 requires an explanation to be given as to why the employer is considering dismissing that particular employee which will involve providing information both as to why the employer considers that there is a redundancy situation and also why the employee is being selected.
The tribunal considered case law relating to cases of unfair dismissal referred to by the parties’ representatives in submissions and in particular  Williams and Others v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83; Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited [1987] 3All ER 974; Rowell v Hubbard Group Services LTD [1995] IRLR 195; Avonmouth Construction v Shipway [1979] IRLR 14; Modern Injection Moulds Ltd v J Price [1976] IRLR 172; and Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613

	The EAT set out standards in the case of Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, to guide tribunals, where relevant, in determining whether a dismissal for redundancy is fair under Article 130(4). Browne-Wilkinson J, giving judgment for the tribunal, expressed the position as follows:
“… there is a generally accepted view in industrial relations that, in cases where the employees are represented by an independent union recognised by the employer, reasonable employers will seek to act in accordance with the following principles:
1.     	The employer will seek to give as much warning as possible of impending redundancies so as to enable the union and employees who may be affected to take early steps to inform themselves of the relevant facts, consider possible alternative solutions and, if necessary, find alternative employment in the undertaking or elsewhere.
2.     	The employer will consult the union as to the best means by which the desired management result can be achieved fairly and with as little hardship to the employees as possible. In particular, the employer will seek to agree with the union the criteria to be applied in selecting the employees to be made redundant. When a selection has been made, the employer will consider with the union whether the selection has been made in accordance with those criteria.
3.     	Whether or not an agreement as to the criteria to be adopted has been agreed with the union, the employer will seek to establish criteria for selection which so far as possible do not depend solely upon the opinion of the person making the selection but can be objectively checked against such things as attendance record, efficiency at the job, experience, or length of service.
4.   	The employer will seek to ensure that the selection is made fairly in accordance with these criteria and will consider any representations the union may make as to such selection.
5.     	The employer will seek to see whether instead of dismissing an employee he could offer him alternative employment.”
The EAT recognised that not all these factors are present in every case as circumstances may prevent one or more of them being given effect. 

4. 	Conclusions
1.	The tribunal was satisfied on the facts found and Counsel for the claimant accepted that the respondent has shown that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was redundancy, satisfying the requirements of Article 130(1) of the 1996 Order.
2.	The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent complied with the requirements of the statutory dismissal procedures. The letter to the claimant dated 26 January 2009 complied with Step 1 in that it notified the claimant that the respondent was contemplating making redundancies and that the claimant’s position was at risk and warning him of his potential redundancy and invited him to a meeting. The tribunal is further satisfied that the respondent complied with Step 2. At the meeting which took place on 6 February 2009 Mr Gatt explained to the claimant why the respondent considered that there was a need for redundancies and why it was proposed to select the claimant, namely that the respondent considered that there was no need for his post as it was considered that there were too many managers in his department and essentially that the respondent wished to make a saving on the claimant’s wage. The tribunal took into account that the claimant did not dispute that there had been a downturn of business and that he understood there was a need to achieve savings at least equivalent to his wage. The tribunal was mindful of the guidance of the EAT in the Alexander v Bridgen case that at this stage the tribunal is not concerned with the reasonableness of what is proposed. No issue was raised by the claimant that the respondent failed to comply with Step 3. Therefore the tribunal determines that the dismissal was not automatically unfair pursuant to Article 130A of the 1996 Order.
3.	The tribunal then went on to consider whether the dismissal was fair or unfair in accordance with Article 130(4). The tribunal does not question the respondent’s business decision that in the prevailing economic circumstances redundancies were necessary nor indeed that the claimant’s position, with others, was identified as being at risk. The tribunal had to determine whether the dismissal the claimant by the respondent lay within the range of conduct which a reasonable employer could have adopted. However it is insufficient merely “to show that it was reasonable to dismiss an employee; it must be shown that the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy “as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”. Therefore, if the circumstances of the employer make it inevitable that some employee must be dismissed, it is still necessary to consider the means whereby the applicant was selected to be the employee to be dismissed and the reasonableness of the steps taken by the employer to choose the applicant, rather than some other employee, for dismissal”.(Per Mr Justice Browne-Wilkinson in the Williams case.) The tribunal was mindful that there is a “neutral” burden of proof under Article 130(4) of the 1996 Order.
4.	 The respondent did not have a written redundancy policy but had in place a system of “bumping” employees with lesser service where, as in the claimant’s case, his post was identified as at risk of redundancy. The claimant was invited during the consultation process to come up with his own proposals for making savings equivalent to his wage within the F & B Department.  Mr Gatt’s response to the claimant’s suggestions was to propose the possibility the creation of a new position of Restaurant Manager. The tribunal accepts that a firm offer of this position was not made to the claimant. However it is also accepted that in view of the representations previously made to the claimant, he had an understandable and reasonable expectation that this would come to fruition. The claimant was shocked to be subsequently informed that the position was not considered viable by “senior management” but that he could express an interest in the Assistant Restaurant Manager’s position. Mr Gatt further indicated that there might be other unspecified positions the claimant could consider “bumping”. The tribunal took into account that at a previous meeting Mr Gatt told the claimant that there was a list of employees who had lesser service, not only in the Ramada Hotel but other businesses in the group. However he declined to provide information in case this revealed personal details.
5.	The tribunal does not question the respondent’s decision that the proposal for the Restaurants Manager post was not viable. However it considered that in these particular circumstances, once the claimant was notified that this was not an option, a reasonable employer would have provided sufficient details of, including job title, salary and status and location, and some further time to the claimant to enable him to make a considered request in relation to any potential positions which were potentially available to him through “bumping”.  It would not have been necessary to reveal the personal details of the post holder concerned. In dismissing the claimant without first providing him with this information and some short further time to consider his options, with the claimant acted outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal considers that this amounted to a failure properly to consult with the claimant as to the application of the respondent’s system of “bumping”.
6.	Further the tribunal did not consider that the claimant was afforded a fair, independent and effective appeal. The tribunal considered that it fell outside the band of reasonable responses and was contrary to the rules of natural justice for a person less senior and inexperienced in conducting appeals to conduct the appeal. Ms Galloway’s own evidence was that she felt it was not in her best interests to overturn the decision to dismiss the claimant. The tribunal further took into consideration that Mr Bauman provided inaccurate information to Ms Galloway about the process. He told her that the respondent had offered the claimant alternative vacancies within the group, voluntary redundancy and bumping, which he had refused, when this was not the case. Mr Bauman did not tell Ms Galloway that he had personally made the decision to dismiss the claimant and he insisted that she conduct the appeal despite her objections. The tribunal considers that a person more senior to Mr Bauman would probably have conducted the appeal more thoroughly and robustly and the tribunal wishes to observe that it would have been possible for Mr Madden to conduct the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the claimant’s objection to Mr Madden conducting the appeal would not have arisen had it been made clear to him that Mr Bauman was responsible for the decision to dismiss him. 
7.	The tribunal is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there would have been a different outcome had a fair process been followed by the respondent and concluded that the claimant would probably have opted to “bump” the Assistant Restaurant Manager or some other employee. The tribunal considered the fact that the claimant subsequently obtained a less well paid job with lesser status with another employer supported his case that he would have taken the Assistant Restaurant Manager’s post if the only alternative was unemployment.
8.	Accordingly the tribunal concludes, having regard to all the particular circumstances of this case that the respondent acted unreasonably in dismissing the claimant and that the claimant was therefore unfairly dismissed.
5.	Remedy
1.	The parties had agreed the figures in the schedule of loss provided to the tribunal for the basic award and loss of earnings by the claimant from the effective date of termination (EDT) 4 March 2009 until the date of hearing on 8 March 2010. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had mitigated his loss since his dismissal and that it is just and equitable to award compensation to the claimant, including future loss of earnings for a period of 12 weeks. 
2.	Therefore compensation is calculated as follows:
Basic Award                                                                                     		£     350.00
Length of service at EDT:                        1 year 3 months
Age at EDT                                               38
Age Multiplier                                           1
Normal Week’s pay (gross) at EDT           £350 statutory maximum
Compensatory Award                                                                         	£10,533.60
a)	Net Loss of earnings between EDT and 8.3.10             £  8,314.80
       Relevant period 52 weeks
       Average net weekly earnings at EDT =       £379.90
       Average net weekly earnings from 9.3.09    £220.00
       Weekly net loss of earnings                 £159.90 x 52
        Plus 
b)	Loss of Statutory Employment Rights                        £   300.00
       Plus 
c)	Future Loss
       £159.90 x 12 weeks                                                            £ 1,918.80

TOTAL AWARD                                                                                            £10, 883.60

3.	The claimant did not claim social security benefits therefore the recoupment provisions do not apply.
4.	This is a relevant payment for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:  8-10 March 2010, Belfast

Date Decision issued to the Parties: