THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	  191/14

CLAIMANT:		Conor Dougan	

RESPONDENTS:	1. Conor McCourt
2. The Little Fish Shop	

DECISION 
The claimant’s claim for a breach of contract is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr B Greene

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear nor was he represented.

The respondents did not appear nor were they represented.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

1.	The tribunal did not hear any oral evidence as neither party attended at the hearing on 18 March 2014.  The tribunal had regard to the claim form and the response.

THE CLAIM AND DEFENCE

2.	The claimant claimed that he suffered a breach of contract by not receiving wages to which he was entitled.  The respondents disputed his claim and asserted that he was not entitled to the monies that he claimed for a number of reasons.

THE ISSUES

3.	Did the claimant suffer a breach of contract by not receiving wages to which he was entitled.  

4.	The tribunal was satisfied that all parties had been notified of today’s hearing and considered the claim and defence in the absence of the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT

5.	The claimant was employed by the respondents from 19 September 2013 until 20 November 2013 as a shop assistant.  His gross and net pay was £5.03 per hour.  He worked 32 hours per week.  

6.	In his claim form the claimant claims breach of contract by not receiving wages of £618.64.

7.	Attached to the claim form he submitted a letter in which he set out having worked for nine weeks at 32 hours per week and earning a total of £1,448.64.  He further says that he received £450.00 in October and £350.00 in December and claimed that he is still owed £618.64 less any tax that is due to be paid by him.  

8.	The claimant set this out in his letter to the respondents on 8 January 2014.

9.	The respondents sent a letter received on 20 February 2014 disputing the claimant’s claim and this has been treated as a response.  In the letter, the respondents deny that the claimant is entitled to the monies he seeks for a number of reasons; that he did not attend for work on all the days that he was required to attend, he was on occasions late, that he had been responsible for reduction in the business of the respondents and that he had acquired from the respondents two aquarium fish tanks the cost of which was to be deducted from his wages.

THE LAW

10.	On termination of a contract of employment, an employee is entitled to any wages due to him that have not been paid.  Failure to provide such wages can amount to a breach of his contract of employment.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE ISSUES

11.	The tribunal is unable to determine the precise figure that the claimant is seeking as he suggests in his letter that from £614.84 claimed tax may be deductable.

12.	The respondents dispute that the claimant is entitled to the monies sought.   They set out a number of reasons why that is so.  There was not any evidence about these reasons before the tribunal and therefore it could not make an evaluation as to their strength or otherwise.  

13.	Neither party attended to give evidence to the tribunal to explain their respective claims or defences.

14.	Accordingly the tribunal dismisses the claimant’s claim as it could not be satisfied on the evidence before it that the claimant had proved his claim for £618.44 on the balance of probabilities.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	18 March 2014, Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: