Mitchell v McKenzie (t/a McKenzie Distribution) [2004] NIIT 8836_03 (7 October 2004)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Mitchell v McKenzie (t/a McKenzie Distribution) [2004] NIIT 8836_03 (7 October 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/8836_03.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 8836_03, [2004] NIIT 8836_3

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     

    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 8836/03

    APPLICANT: Robert Mitchell

    RESPONDENT: Paul McKenzie t/a McKenzie Distribution

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant's claim is dismissed.

    Appearances:

    The applicant was not present nor was he represented.

    The respondent was not present nor was he represented.

  1. These reasons are given in summary form.

  2. The applicant claimed unpaid wages. The respondent denied the applicant was owed any money.

  3. The tribunal was satisfied that both parties had been notified of the instant hearing. In the absence of the parties, without explanation, the tribunal decided to consider the application.

    4. In considering the application the tribunal had regard to the Originating Application, the Notice of Appearance and an extract from a contact purporting to be the applicant's contract of employment.

  4. The tribunal made the following findings:-

    5. (a) The applicant was employed from May or July 2003 to 5 September 2003 as a lorry driver.

    (b) The applicant was paid per week between £430.00 and £450.00.

    (c) The applicant handed in his notice on 3 September 2003, effective from 5 September 2003. He claims the respondent withheld one week's pay for a lying week. The respondent accepted that he did not receive that payment.

    (d) The respondent asserted that he is entitled to deduct any wages due in respect of any unworked period if the contract is terminated without having worked or given adequate notice.

    (e) The respondent asserts that the applicant was required to give two week's notice of termination. The applicant gave two days notice.

    (f) The assertions of the applicant and the respondent are in direct conflict. There was no objective evidence before the tribunal to enable the tribunal to prefer one account to the other.

    The applicant has failed therefore to show on the balance of probabilities that he is owed one week's wages for a lying week worked by him.

    (g) Accordingly the tribunal dismisses the applicant's application.

    Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 7 October 2004, Belfast.

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/8836_03.html