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 >> Rawski v Rubbertec International Limite... [2010] NIIT 1971_10IT (23 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/1971_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 1971_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1971/10
CLAIMANT: Tomasz Rawski
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 £317 in respect of unpaid wages.
(B) The claimant’s claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £341 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 £287 in respect of notice pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
REASONS
1.
At the end of this hearing, I
issued my decision orally. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for my
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 his 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 he is entitled to the sums claimed by him, and that those sums have not been paid to him.
3.
As I explained to the claimant
during the course of this hearing, the position is as follows. In their letter
of 5 May 2010, the respondent in effect admits liability in respect of the sums
claimed. In the circumstances, it has been unnecessary for me to consider, for
the purpose of determining these claims against employer, 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 these 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 of
new employment, are all matters which would then have to be addressed.
4.
As I also explained to the
claimant 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 him, because the relevant company 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:
