THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1844/10

CLAIMANT:			John Paul Kerr

RESPONDENT:		Rubbertec International Limited

DECISION 
(A)	The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded.  It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,880 in respect of notice pay.

(B)	The claimant’s claim in respect of redundancy pay is well-founded.  It is declared that the claimant is entitled to a £6,877 redundancy payment from the  respondent.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mr Paul Buggy
Members:		Mr Ian Carroll
			Mr Jim Welsh

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr John O’Neill, Solicitor of Thompsons McClure Solicitors.

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

REASONS

1.	Originally, these proceedings were brought against “Rubbertec Limited”.   We were satisfied that the proper title of the respondent company becomes “Rubbertec International Limited” and we altered the title of the respondent, for the purpose of these proceedings, accordingly.  At the end of this hearing, we issued our decision orally.  At the same time, we gave oral reasons for this decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

2.	In his claim in these proceedings (which he completed himself), the claimant makes an explicit claim in respect of a redundancy payment.  At paragraph 5.5 of the claim form, the claimant makes it clear that he did not work, and was not paid for, any period of notice, even though he had been employed by the company for nearly ten years.  In our view, that is sufficient to constitute a claim in respect of notice pay.

3.	On the basis of the claimant’s claim form, on the basis of his oral testimony and on the basis of a letter dated 5 May 2010 from the respondent, we are satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent company, and that he is entitled to the sums claimed by him, and that those sums have not been paid to him.

4.	As was explained during the course of this hearing, the position is as follows.  The respondent has not defended these proceedings.  In the circumstances, it has been unnecessary to consider, for the purpose of determining these claims against the employer (in the context of the claim for statutory notice) whether net pay, as distinct from gross pay, should be allowed, whether there should be deductions in respect of receipt of any social security benefits received by the claimant, or whether there should be deductions in respect of any pay received in respect of new (post-dismissal) employment.  However, if the claimant is ever able to make a successful application to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”) for payment in respect of those debts (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor), the net pay/gross pay issue, the issue as to whether allowance should be made for social security payments, and the issue as to whether allowance should be made for any income received in the course in new employment, are all matters which would then have to be addressed.

5.	As was explained during this hearing, the position at present seems to be that the Department would not be liable, in a statutory guarantor role, to make any payments to this claimant in respect of wages, holiday pay or notice pay, because the respondent is not currently, formally insolvent.  It has not, for example, gone into liquidation or administration.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:    3 November 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: