THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 00010/10

CLAIMANT:  	Stuart Leighton

RESPONDENT: 	John Patterson

DECISION

The tribunal has concluded that the claimant was dismissed on the ground of redundancy and the respondent is ordered to pay to him the sum of £4,056.00. The tribunal also finds that the respondent owes to the claimant £670.68 by way of unlawful deduction of wages.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone):  Mr Trevor Browne

Appearances: 

The claimant appeared and represented himself.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

The Issue

1.	The tribunal had to decide if the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and, if so, to what payment he was entitled. The tribunal also had to decide if the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of wages by purporting to pay him by way of cheques which were not honoured by the respondent’s bank.

Findings of Fact 

2.	The claimant worked for the respondent as a pvc window fabricator at the respondent’s premises from September 1994 until July 2008. These premises were the only ones operated by the respondent, although at the same site he operated, and continues to operate a joinery arm of his business. There is no issue raised by the claimant that he was unfairly selected for redundancy. 

3.	It became increasingly apparent to the workforce that work throughout the respondent’s pvc window  business was diminishing over a period of time. At the end of the claimant’s employment he was working only two days per week.

4.	The claimant and his colleagues repeatedly asked the respondent for details of what they would receive by way of redundancy payment, but despite his assurances that he would attend to it, they never received this information.

5.	On 8 May 2008 the claimant and his colleagues were informed by the site foreman that they were being made redundant in twelve weeks’ time. On 11 July 2008, the claimant was made redundant and received cheques for his week’s pay (i.e. two days), and for his forthcoming two full weeks’ holidays. There was no reference to or payment for the redundancy. When the claimant tried to cash his cheques on 11 July the respondent’s bank declined to honour them. He on that date wrote a letter of grievance to the respondent to which on 28 July he received a reply from the respondent’s solicitors but no redundancy payment.

Law and Conclusions

6.	The claimant took no issue with the fact that there was a redundancy situation, nor with his selection for redundancy. The tribunal finds from the evidence that the claimant was made redundant.

7.	The claimant by reason of his thirteen full years’ employment is entitled to a redundancy payment.

8.	It is also the view of the tribunal that for the respondent to purport to pay the claimant with cheques which were dishonoured was in effect an unlawful deduction from his wages.

The Amount

9.	The claimant had thirteen years’ continuous employment, his gross pay being £312 per week, notwithstanding the reduced days towards the end of his employment, which occurred within what in effect was a twelve-week notice period.

The claimant therefore is entitled to 13 x £312 x 1 =	 £4,056.00

As regards the deduction of wages, he is entitled to two days’ pay totalling 							 £   135.84

plus holiday pay of						 £    534.84

Totalling 							 £    670.68

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:  26 February 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: