THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 
  
CASE REF:    2052/11

CLAIMANT:	Martin Crawford				

RESPONDENT:	Philip Barnhill trading as The Basement

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant £1430.80 in respect of a redundancy payment.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone):	Mr H Travers

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.

The respondent did not attend and was not represented.

REASONS

1.	At the hearing the claimant informed the tribunal that The Basement was not a limited company and was in fact a trading name of Philip Barnhill.  Consequently the tribunal directs that the title of these proceedings be amended to describe the respondent as “Philip Barnhill trading as The Basement”. 

2.	The issue for the tribunal is whether or not the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment and/or outstanding holiday pay in consequence of the termination of his employment with the respondent.

3.	The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in May 2006.  His employment continued until 03/06/11 when the business closed.  The claimant’s employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy.  At that time the respondent paid the claimant one month’s pay in lieu of notice.  The claimant makes no claim in respect of notice pay.  The claimant told the tribunal that the respondent acknowledged that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment but the respondent said that he was simply unable to afford to pay it to him.

4.	At the date of his redundancy the claimant was 27 years of age.  He had completed 5 years of service with the respondent.

5.	The claimant produced a payslip which disclosed weekly pay of £286.16 gross and £232.20 net.  The claimant told the tribunal that in his last 6 months employment with the respondent he was paid at a slightly higher rate which equated to £250 per week net.  The claimant explained that through no fault of his own he was unable to produce up to date payslips.  This was unfortunate and the tribunal has some sympathy with the claimant.  Ultimately however the tribunal must decide the case on the balance of probabilities on the best evidence which is available to it.  In all the circumstances the tribunal adopts the figures on the payslip which it has seen and uses those as the basis of the tribunal’s calculations.

6.	Following the statutory formula, the appropriate multiplier for calculating the redundancy payment is 5.

7.	The claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of 5 x 286.16 = £1430.80. 

8.	The claimant told the tribunal that his leave year commenced at the start of each year.  The claimant seeks payment of 10 days outstanding holiday pay.  On the claimant’s presentation, the tribunal understands this to represent the number of days holiday which the claimant had outstanding on his leave year at the time his employment was terminated.  Unfortunately this approach is flawed.  The claimant’s outstanding holiday entitlement at the date of termination is calculated on the basis of the proportion of the leave year which has occurred up to the date of termination, rather than on the basis of the claimant’s entitlement over the entire leave year.  The evidence of the claimant appeared to indicate that by the date of termination he had already taken such proportion of his annual holiday entitlement as had accrued by the date of termination.  On the evidence the claimant has failed to satisfy the tribunal that he is entitled to a payment in respect of outstanding holiday pay.

9.	The tribunal finds that the claimant’s total entitlement to a payment from the respondent is £1430.80.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:     23 November 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: