 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Gibson v Paul McDonald Baileys Mill Ltd [2011] NIIT 01900_11IT (15 November 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01900_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 1900_11IT, [2011] NIIT 01900_11IT |
||
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1900/11
CLAIMANT: Richard Gibson
RESPONDENTS: 1. Paul McDonald
2. Baileys Mills Ltd
DECISION
(A) All of the claimant’s claims against Mr Paul McDonald are not well-founded and accordingly they are dismissed.
(B) The claimant’s claim against Baileys Mills Ltd (“the Company”) in respect of unpaid wages is well-founded and it is ordered that the Company shall pay to the claimant the sum of £3,666 in respect of unpaid wages.
(C) The claimant’s claim against
the Company in respect of holiday pay is
well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant
the sum of £1,015 in respect of holiday pay.
(D) The claimant’s claim against
the Company in respect of notice pay is not
well-founded. Accordingly that claim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of either of the respondents.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the conclusion of the main hearing of these proceedings. I gave reasons for my decision at that time. What follows is by way of summary only.
2. I was satisfied that the claimant was employed by the Company (and not by Mr McDonald), from the beginning of December 2010 until the end of May 2011.
3. I was satisfied that the claimant was not paid his wages in respect of the months of February 2011 and May 2011.
4. I was satisfied that, by the time of the termination of the claimant’s employment, he had accrued 12 days of holiday pay entitlements (in respect of holiday entitlements which had not yet been taken). I was satisfied that the claimant’s gross daily pay was £80.60.
5. I was satisfied that the claimant’s gross monthly pay was £1,833.
6. In the circumstances of this case, the claimant is not entitled to any sum in respect of notice pay, because he resigned. (Incidentally, I consider that the decision to resign was an entirely appropriate decision, given that there was a consistent failure, in the part of the employer, to pay the claimant his wages in respect of February 2011.)
7. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 2 November 2011
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: