THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1583/10

CLAIMANT:			Martina Shiels

RESPONDENT:		Rubbertec International Limited

DECISION 
(A)	The claimant’s claim for unpaid wages is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £299 in respect of unpaid wages.

(B)	The claimant’s claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay is well-founded and its ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £418 in respect of holiday pay.

(C)	The claimant’s claim for 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.

(D)	The claimant’s claim in respect of redundancy pay is well-founded and it is declared that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,588 from the respondent.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mr P Buggy
Members:		Mr I Carroll
			Mr J 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.	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 these proceedings, the claimant claims all of the sums specified above.  On the basis of the claimant’s claim form, on the basis of her oral testimony, and on the basis of a letter dated 5 May 2010 from the respondent, I am satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent company, and that she is entitled to the sums claimed by her, and that those sums have not been paid to her.

3.	As I explained during the course of this hearing, the position is as follows.  The respondent has not defended these proceedings.  In their letter of 5 May 2010, the respondent in effect admits liability in respect of the sums which are claimed in respect of wages and accrued holiday entitlement.  In the circumstances, it has been unnecessary for me to consider, for the purpose of determining these claims against the employer (in the context of the claims for wages, for holidays and 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.

4.	As I 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.

5.	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: