THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	  2733/14

CLAIMANT:		Deividas Budginas

RESPONDENT:	David Wright t/a Wright Recycling

DECISION 

(A)	The claimant’s holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £576 in respect of holiday pay.

(B)	The claimant’s claim for notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £262 in respect of notice pay.   

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

The respondent was debarred from participating in the proceedings, because no response has been presented in this case.

REASONS

1.	I am satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his holiday pay and notice pay claims within the relevant primary time-limit and that those claims were presented within a further period which I consider to be reasonable.

2.	On the basis of the evidence of the claimant, I was satisfied that he was not given adequate notice of the termination of his employment and I am sure that he lost £262 because of that failure to give notice.  

3.	I am also satisfied, again on the evidence of the claimant, that he was due holiday pay at the time of the termination of his employment.  But how much was due?  According to the claimant, he was due £576.  That is what he told me, during the course of his sworn testimony.  I was concerned about the vagueness of the claimant’s answers, when I asked him whether he had taken any holidays, during the year 2014, prior to the date of his dismissal, and if so, how many holidays.  However the claimant told me that the figure of £576 was inserted in the claim form on the basis of the information which was available to him at the time of his dismissal.  His evidence was uncontroverted evidence.  Against that background, and for those reasons, and not without reservation, I have accepted that the claimant is due the amount of holiday pay which he claims.

4.	The claimant confirmed to me,  during the course of his evidence, that he is not contending that he was employed by the respondent for more than nine months.  Accordingly,  he is not entitled to any redundancy  payment.  

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

Employment Judge:       

Date and place of hearing:  3 March 2015		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: