Godding v Cousins & Anor (t/a Mallusk Accident & Repair Centre) [2007] NIIT 167_06 (25 April 2007)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Godding v Cousins & Anor (t/a Mallusk Accident & Repair Centre) [2007] NIIT 167_06 (25 April 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/167_06.html
Cite as: [2007] NIIT 167_06, [2007] NIIT 167_6

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 167/06

    CLAIMANT: Edward Godding

    RESPONDENTS: 1. Nigel Cousins t/a Mallusk Accident & Repair Centre

    2. Redundancy Payments Service

    DECISION

    The decision of the tribunal is that the first respondent to pay to the claimant the sum of £3,920.00 by way of redundancy payment the sum of £2,640.00 by way of notice pay and the sum of £220.00 by way of outstanding wages, making £6780.00 in total.

    Constitution of Tribunal:

    Chairman (sitting alone): Mr Davey

    Appearances:

    The claimant was represented by Mr P Upson Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Thompson McClure Solicitors.

    There was no appearance by or on behalf of the first respondent.

    The second respondent was represented by Ms P Baird.

    Reasons

  1. The claimant's evidence, which the tribunal accepted, was to the effect that he had commenced employment with the first respondent's predecessors in October 1990. In or around the end of May 2004 he commenced sick leave and received statutory sick pay. He continued to receive statutory sick pay until March 2005. He was hopeful that the condition which had prevented him from working was improving and that he would be fit to return to work in the foreseeable future. There had been no communication from the first respondent or any indication that his contract of employment had been terminated or that there was any thought of termination until September 2005 when the first respondent ceased trading.

  2. The second respondent suggested that the claimant's status as an employee was in doubt. The tribunal disagrees. There was clearly a viable, substantive and active contractual relationship between the claimant and the first respondent up until March 2005 when the claimant's entitlement to statutory sick pay ceased. There was no indication that there was any change in that underlying relationship thereafter until the first respondent ceased trading. Having established the existence of the contract it seems to the tribunal that it is for the party claiming that it had come to an end to adduce evidence to show that to be the case. No such evidence was put forward. In any event the tribunal considers that it would be too soon to conclude, in the absence of other compelling evidence, that a long term relationship such as existed between the claimant and the first respondent had come to an end through frustration.

  3. On the basis of that finding the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment. He had been employed for a period of 14 years during which time he was above the age of 22 and under the age of 41. Accordingly he is entitled to a redundancy payment of one weeks pay for each year of service at the rate of £280 for each year, that being his gross weekly wage. The amount due by way of redundancy payment is £3,920.

  4. There was no question of any notice being given to the claimant or any other employee. Although he was not actually working at the time of the termination of his contract of employment the provisions of article 120 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) (Order 1996) (as amended) are satisfied and the claimant is, accordingly, entitled to 12 weeks pay by way of notice pay, ie 12 x £220.00 = £2,640.00.

    5. The claimant also sought payment of outstanding wages in respect of his 'lying week'. The tribunal accepted that this was owing also in the sum of £220.00 and orders accordingly.

  5. The claimant had originally sought to claim holiday pay. However at the hearing he accepted that this claim was ill founded and agreed that it should be dismissed. The tribunal orders accordingly.

  6. Recoupment

    7. No question of recoupment arises.

  7. Interest

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

    Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 7 December 2006, Belfast

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/167_06.html