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 £5, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Moore v Belfast Contract Cleaners Ltd [2002] NIIT 1231_02 (13 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/1231_02.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 1231_2, [2002] NIIT 1231_02 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 1231/02
APPLICANT: Edward Moore
RESPONDENT: Belfast Contract Cleaners Ltd
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-
(i) the applicant's claim in respect of unlawful deductions from his wages is dismissed;
(ii) references to the tribunal in respect of the respondent company's failure to give the applicant a written statement of particulars of employment, and a written itemised pay statement were withdrawn by the applicant's representative in open tribunal.
Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Mr N Turnbull.
The respondent company was represented by Mr A Montgomery, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Peden and Reid, Solicitors.
| 2. | (i) | The tribunal heard evidence from Miss Greta McShane, the secretary of the respondent company. The applicant did not give evidence. The tribunal had regard to the contents of his originating application. It also had regard to the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. |
(ii) It finds the facts set out in the following paragraphs proved to its satisfaction on the balance of probabilities.
| 3. | (i) | The applicant was employed as a cleaner by the respondent company. He had worked for them for a number of years, when his employment ended on 30 April 2002. At the relevant time he had been working for them under a cleaning contract which they had for Department of Agriculture premises at Newforge, Belfast. |
(ii) Time sheets were submitted by supervisors in respect of hours worked by the applicant and fellow employees. These showed clocking in and clocking out times of employees. When these hours were entered by the payroll clerk, one hour per day should have been deducted from the total in respect of breaks. It was the respondent's case that the applicant was not entitled to be paid for these breaks, whereas the applicant contended that he was.
(iii) As a result of an error by a payroll clerk, this deduction of one hour per day was not made, with the result that over a period of months, the applicant was paid for 95 hours which he did not work.
(iv) At the end of the applicant's period of employment, a deduction was made from the applicant's final pay packet in respect of these alleged overpayments. (In the event of liability, the amount of overpayment was not an issue between the parties).
(v) The applicant's representative conceded that if the applicant was not entitled to be paid for breaks, then the making of the deductions was proper and lawful.
____________________________________
Date and place of hearing: 13 December 2002, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
