THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	  1090/14

CLAIMANT:			Charles Rea

RESPONDENT:		J & G Seafoods Ltd

DECISION 

(A)	The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £458 in respect of notice pay.  

(B)	The claimant’s redundancy pay claim is well-founded and it is declared that the respondent is liable to make a redundancy payment of £3,780 to the claimant.

(C)	The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is well-founded.  Any remedies to which the claimant is entitled will be decided during a future remedies hearing, if the claimant decides to pursue a claim for compensation in respect of the unfair dismissal.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Ms Maeve Corrigan, Trainee Solicitor.

The respondent was debarred from participating in the hearing because the respondent did not present a response within the relevant time-limit.

REASONS

1.	I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for that decision.  

2.	This Decision is based on the following information: 

	Gross weekly pay: 					£360
	Net weekly pay					£300
	Number of actual completed years of service:	7
	Age on date of dismissal:				55
	Multiplier (for redundancy pay):			10.5

3.	The claimant also has a holiday pay claim, which was not adjudicated upon during the course of this hearing.  A future hearing will be arranged, in due course, to deal with the claimant’s holiday pay claim, if he decides to pursue that claim.  

4.	A future hearing will also deal with the claimant’s application for compensation in respect of unfair dismissal, if he decides to pursue any such application for compensation.

5.	During the course of this main hearing, the claimant was ably represented by Ms Corrigan.

6.	The claimant does not believe that the respondent company will have any money available to meet the requirements of any industrial tribunal award.  Accordingly, the real focus, in the circumstances of this case, is on the money which may be available from the Redundancy Payment Service.  (At present, because the respondent company is not formally insolvent,  RPS money can only be made available in respect of redundancy pay).

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

Employment Judge:       

Date and place of hearing:  1 August 2014, Belfast.		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: