THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS  

CASE REF:    92/12 IT

CLAIMANT:	Colin Carson

RESPONDENT:	D.A.M.P Ltd

DECISION

It is the decision of the tribunal that the claimant is entitled to receive the sum of £2,680.99 being a balance of the redundancy payment due and owing to him from the respondent.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman  (Sitting alone):	Ms W A Crooke

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

The respondent was originally sued by the claimant in the name of its Chief Executive, Donald Malomo-Paris, but further to an e-mail of the respondent to the tribunal dated 14 February 2012, and with the consent of the claimant the tribunal changed the name of the respondent to D.A.M.P Ltd which company was respondent to the claim of the claimant.

THE CLAIM AND THE RESPONSE

1.	The claimant claimed that he was entitled to the balance of a redundancy payment from the respondent.  The respondent did not deny this in his e-mail dated 14 February 2012 which was deemed to be a response to the claim of the claimant.

RELEVANT LAW

2.	The relevant law is found in Article 199 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

THE FACTS

3.	The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Landscape Architect for 10 complete years at the time he was made redundant in March 2011.

4.	In compliance with Article 199 (1) (b) the claimant made a claim for the redundancy payment to the respondent by letter dated 31 May 2011.

5.	Although the claimant said that his gross weekly wage was £375.00 and with his service of 10 completed years and all of it having been completed within the age band of 22 to 40 years.  The computation of his redundancy payment would have been as follows:-

		£375.00  x  1  x  10  =  £3,750.00

	The claimant did not dispute the respondent’s calculation of his redundancy payment that was contained in the letter to him of 15 July 2011 as being £3,680.99.  In that letter the respondent also made a payment on account of the redundancy payment in the sum of £1,000.00.

6.	Strictly speaking it could be argued that as the claimant directed his correspondence to Donald Malomo-Paris (“the Principal Executive” of the respondent), he had not actually fulfilled the requirements of Article 199(b) by making a claim to his employer, as his actual employer was the limited company and not the Principal Executive, Donald Malomo-Paris personally.

7.	However, as the respondent company and Mr Malomo-Paris were virtually one and the same entity and part of the claimant’s correspondence with the respondent had to be to Mr Malomo-Paris personally in Nigeria, the tribunal considers that it is just and equitable that the claimant should receive the balance of the redundancy payment due to him.

8.	Furthermore, the tribunal is supported in reaching this conclusion by the e-mail of 14 February 2012 from Mr Malomo-Paris stating that he did not dispute the entitlement and confirming that he had paid the sum of £1,000.00 on account.  Therefore, the tribunal declares that the balance of £2,680.99 is due and owing from the respondent to the claimant in this case by way of a balance due pursuant to the claimant’s entitlement to a redundancy payment.

9.	This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (NI) 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:       20 March 2012, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: