THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	  113/14

CLAIMANT:			Ann Chambers

RESPONDENT:		Declan Rodgers

DECISION 

(A)	The claimant’s notice pay claim is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,355 in respect of notice pay.

(B)	The claimant’s redundancy pay claim is well-founded.  It is declared that the respondent is liable to make a redundancy payment of £4,043 to the claimant.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr Mark Mason of Collective Business Services.

The respondent was not present or represented.

REASONS

1.	My understanding is that the respondent is still a practicing solicitor.  I know of no good reason for the respondent’s absence from this hearing.  

2.	I decided to dispose of the proceedings in his absence.  In doing so, I took account of the information which had been made available by the parties to this litigation.

3.	I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I gave oral reasons for that decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.  

4.	This decision is based on the following information:

	Gross pay:						£385 per week

	Net weekly pay:					£316 per week

	Number of actual completed years of service:	7

	Age on day of dismissal:				52

	Multiplier (for redundancy pay):			10.5

5.	I received sworn oral testimony from the claimant.  In assessing the evidence in this case, I took account of the fact that, although the respondent is a practising solicitor, he did not attend the hearing and I am aware of no good reason for his absence.  The claimant was a truthful witness in these proceedings.  I am satisfied that the respondent’s response form contains inaccurate factual assertions and unfair comments.  I am satisfied that the respondent had no option but to dismiss the claimant, because of the personal and professional circumstances in which he found himself.  I am satisfied that the sole reason for the dismissal fell without the scope of the definition of redundancy (for redundancy legislation purposes).

6.	In this case, neither of the remaining parties now asserts that this claimant had any relevant entitlements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (“TUPER”).  Accordingly, in arriving at this Decision, I have not addressed any TUPE issues.

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:  8 July 2014, Belfast.		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: