THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	965/13

CLAIMANT:			John Alexander Garrett

RESPONDENT:		Department for Employment and Learning

DECISION
The claimant’s appeals against the Department’s decisions are successful, to the following extent.  The claimant’s entitlements under the statutory guarantee provisions should be calculated on the basis that he was entitled to £280 gross wages per week.  I am also satisfied that, during at least eight weeks, he was not paid the weekly wage to which he was entitled.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):	    Mr P Buggy

Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The Department was represented by Mr Peter Curran.

REASONS

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

2.	There are significant discrepancies between the company’s documentary records on the one hand, and the claimant’s oral testimony in this appeal on the other hand, regarding the gross amount of the claimant’s weekly wages.  On balance, and not without hesitation, I accepted the claimant’s version of events, bearing in mind, in particular, that the bank statements which he showed me appeared to support his assertions.  

3.	In my view, in light of the company’s records regarding the amounts paid to the claimant, it was entirely appropriate for the Department to operate on the assumption that the claimant was being paid only £175 per week.  This appeal has been successful mainly because the claimant gave evidence on oath, and I accepted the truthfulness of that testimony.

4.	I note that the claimant’s wife, at relevant times, was in receipt of tax credits.

5.	In future similar cases, the Department may wish to consider whether it would be both helpful and proportionate to obtain details of what a claimant/appellant told HMRC, contemporaneously, regarding the amount of his weekly pay.  

6.	Of course, whether it would be helpful, or whether it would be a proportionate course of action, to obtain such documentation, is a matter solely for consideration by the Department.  It is entirely possible that such a course of action would not be helpful or would cause disproportionate delay.  I do not express a view either way, on either the “helpful” issue or the proportionality issue.  

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:  14 February 2014, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: