Glendinning,Beggs vs Mid Ulster District Council,Dungannon & South Tyrone
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 05 January 2017 |
| Respondent | Mid Ulster District Council,Dungannon & South Tyrone |
| Docket Number | 01375/15IT |
| Court | Industrial Tribunal (NI) |
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 1375/15
1379/15
CLAIMANTS: 1. William John Glendinning
2. Patrick Beggs
RESPONDENTS: 1. Mid Ulster District Council
2. Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council
DECISION
The unanimous decisions of the tribunal are as follows:
In the Glendinning case:
(A) Mr Glendinning’s breach of contract claim in respect of notice (his “notice claim”) is well-founded.
(B) Any claim for compensation due to him in respect of that breach of contract will be considered during the course of a remedies hearing, if the amount of any such compensation is not agreed between the parties beforehand.
(C) Mr Glendinning has withdrawn all of his other claims against the New Council. Accordingly, all of those other claims are dismissed.
In the Beggs case:
(A) Mr Beggs’ notice claim against the New Council is well-founded.
(B) Any claim for compensation due to him in respect of that breach of contract will be considered during the course of a remedies hearing, if the amount of any such compensation is not agreed between the parties beforehand.
(C) The claim of Mr Beggs against the New Council in respect of an alleged underpayment is not well-founded. Accordingly, that claim is dismissed.
(D) Mr Beggs has withdrawn all of his other claims against the New Council. Accordingly, all of those other claims are dismissed.
(E) As noted above, Mr Beggs made notice and underpayment claims against the New Council. In the alternative, he made the same claims, against Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council (“Dungannon”). None of the claims against Dungannon is well-founded. Accordingly, all of those claims, against Dungannon, are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge: Employment Judge Buggy
Members: Ms E Torrans
Mr B Hanna
Appearances:
Mr Glendinning was represented by Ms R Best, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by O’Reilly Stewart Solicitors.
Mr Beggs was also represented by Ms Best. In the Beggs case, Ms Best was instructed by McKeowns Solicitors.
In each of these two cases, the respondent/s was/were represented by Mr C Hamill, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Worthingtons Solicitors.
REASONS
1. Until 1 April 2015, there were 26 local district councils in Northern Ireland. With effect from that date, under a programme of reform, 11 new councils took over the functions of the previous 26. The new councils provide the same services as those which the previous councils had provided, but also have a number of additional powers and responsibilities.
2. As a result of amalgamation, some of the new councils had some surplus posts. In order to address that surplus, each of the relevant new councils invited various staff to consider applying for “severance”, pursuant to that particular council’s severance scheme.
3. The Mid Ulster District Council is referred to below as “the New Council”. It replaced the previous Councils of: (1) Cookstown, (2) Magherafelt and (3) Dungannon & South Tyrone.
4. These two cases are lead cases in respect of a multiple. That multiple consists of five cases. (In this Decision, the claimants in those five cases are referred to collectively as “the relevant claimants”).
5. The names of the “other” relevant claimants (the relevant claimants other than the claimants in these two cases), together with the relevant case reference numbers, are as follow:
(1) Alan Burke (1377/15)
(2) Brendan Currie (1378/15)
(3) Thomas McClelland (1376/15)
6. Prior to amalgamation:
(1) Mr Glendinning was employed by Magherafelt District Council (“Magherafelt”).
(2) The other four relevant claimants were employed by Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council (“Dungannon”).
7. Until 1 April 2015:
(1) Mr Glendinning was the Director of Building Control of Magherafelt.
(2) Mr Beggs was the Head of Economic Development of Dungannon.
(3) Mr Alan Burke (“Mr Burke”) was the Chief Executive of Dungannon.
(4) Mr Brendan Currie (“Mr Currie”) was the Director of Human Resources of Dungannon.
(5) Mr Thomas McClelland was the Director of Building Services of Dungannon.
8. On 1 April 2015, each of the relevant claimants became an employee of the New Council. The effect of a scheme which was made pursuant to Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) is that, for all purposes which are significant in the present context, each relevant claimant acquired the same entitlements, against the New Council, as he would have had if:
(1) the New Council had been a private employer and
(2) he had become an employee of the New Council pursuant to a relevant transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
9. Each relevant claimant’s contract of employment was terminated pursuant to the New Council’s severance scheme (“the Severance Scheme”).
The claims
10. The New Council is a respondent in each of these two cases. (In the Glendinning case, it is the sole respondent).
11. Each relevant claimant claims that: (1) the New Council was under a contractual obligation, implied pursuant to Article 118 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“ERO”), to provide him with the due notice of termination of employment which is provided for in Article 118; and (2) it failed to do so. These two cases (the Glendinning and Beggs cases) are lead cases in respect of those notice claims. Neither claimant makes a notice claim on any contractual basis other than the implied contractual notice term which is provided for by Article 118 of ERO.
12. For several years, until 1 February 2015, Mr Beggs had been working a three-day week. Throughout the period beginning on 1 February 2015 and ending on the date of termination of his employment, Mr Beggs was working five days a week. For the purpose of calculating his severance entitlements, the New Council based his pay on the weekly salary entitlement which he had had when he had been working for only three days a week. In these proceedings, Mr Beggs claims that the New Council is in breach of relevant legal obligations by failing to pay his severance entitlements on the basis of the salary which he was earning while working five days per week. That is the underpayment claim.
The evidence
13. In respect of the evidence which we received in this case, our summary is as follows:
(1) On the claimants’ side of these two cases, we received oral testimony from three of the relevant claimants: Mr Glendinning, Mr Beggs and Mr Currie.
(2) On the respondent’s side of the case, we received oral testimony from Mr Anthony Tohill (the Chief Executive of the New Council) and from Ms Marissa Canavan (who was the lead HR Lead Officer of the New Council at the time of the terminations of the employments of Mr Glendinning and of Mr Beggs).
(3) We saw a large agreed bundle of documents, consisting of...
To continue reading
Request your trial