Smith,Gordon,Taylor vs Queen's University Belfast
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 27 September 2012 |
| Respondent | Queen's University Belfast |
| Docket Number | 02740/11IT |
| Court | Industrial Tribunal (NI) |
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2740/11
2741/11
2743/11
CLAIMANTS: 1. John Robert Smith
2. Alan Gordon
3. James Taylor
RESPONDENT: Queen’s University Belfast
Certificate of Correction
1. In the decision in this matter, dated 27 September 2012, the second claimant was awarded the sum of £5,025.28.
2. This calculation was based on the figure of £267.00 being the second claimant’s weekly gross wage, resulting in a Basic Award of £2,002.50 as a part of the overall award of compensation to this claimant.
3. By a letter dated 10 October 2012 Donnelly and Kinder, the Solicitors for the second claimant confirmed that the figure provided in the Schedule of Loss for the second claimant as the gross weekly wage should have been £246.53.
4. By an e-mail, dated 6 November 2012, Donnelly and Kinder attached an amended calculation of the award to the second claimant which they had agreed by the Solicitors for the respondent.
5. Accordingly, the tribunal orders that this amended calculation attached hereto shall be substituted for the original calculation of compensation of the tribunal in the decision of 27 September 2012.
6. The tribunal further orders that the sum of £5,025.28 entered as the award to the second claimant on pages 1 and 19 of the original decision shall be replaced with the figure: £4,871.36.
7. An amended Annex is also appended in respect of the second claimant (Appendix One).
Chairman:
Date: December 2012.
Case Ref No: 2741/11
APPENDIX ONE
CLAIMANT: Alan Gordon
RESPONDENT(S): Queens University Belfast
ANNEX TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
STATEMENT RELATING TO THE RECOUPMENT OF JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE/INCOME –RELATED EMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE/ INCOME SUPPORT
1. The following particulars are given pursuant to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996; The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments No.6) (Northern Ireland) 2010.
|
|
£ |
|
(a) Monetary award |
4,871.36 |
|
(b) Prescribed element |
1,566.34 |
|
(c) Period to which (b) relates: |
16/08/11 to 06/11/11 and 03/02/12 to 14/06/12 |
|
(d) Excess of (a) over (b) |
3,305.02 |
The claimant may not be entitled to the whole monetary award. Only (d) is payable forthwith; (b) is the amount awarded for loss of earnings during the period under (c) without any allowance for Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Support received by the claimant in respect of that period; (b) is not payable until the Department of Social Development has served a notice (called a recoupment notice) on the respondent to pay the whole or a part of (b) to the Department (which it may do in order to obtain repayment of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-related Employment and Support Allowance or Income Support paid to the claimant in respect of that period) or informs the respondent in writing that no such notice, which will not exceed (b), will be payable to the Department. The balance of (b), or the whole of it if notice is given that no recoupment notice will be served, is then payable to the claimant.
2. The Recoupment Notice must be served within the period of 21 days after the conclusion of the hearing or 9 days after the decision is sent to the parties (whichever is the later), or as soon as practicable thereafter, when the decision is given orally at the hearing. When the decision is reserved the notice must be sent within a period of 21 days after the date on which the decision is sent to the parties, or as soon as practicable thereafter.
3. The claimant will receive a copy of the recoupment notice and should inform the Department of Social Development in writing within 21 days if the amount claimed is disputed. The tribunal cannot decide that question and the respondent, after paying the amount under (d) and the balance (if any) under (b), will have no further liability to the claimant, but the sum claimed in a recoupment notice is due from the respondent as a debt to the Department whatever may have been paid to the claimant and regardless of any dispute between the claimant and the Department.
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 2740/11
2741/11
2743/11
CLAIMANTS: 1. John Robert Smith
2. Alan Gordon
3. James Taylor
RESPONDENT: Queen’s University Belfast
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the dismissal of the claimants was generally procedurally unfair but that the claimants contributed to their dismissals. This decision does not take account of any pension loss of the claimants as despite a reminder from the tribunal during the hearing that such a claim required quantifying, no evidence of loss was submitted. A further hearing will be required if the parties are not able to resolve this issue between themselves. The respondent is ordered to pay to:-
The first claimant the sum of: £6,383.09
The second claimant the sum of: £5,025.28
The third claimant the sum of: £5,626.70
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Ms W A Crooke
Members: Mr P Sidebottom
Mr J Patterson
Appearances:
Mr Smith appeared during the hearing in person and represented himself.
Mr Gordon and Mr Taylor were represented by Mr T Warnock, Barrister-at-Law, instructed both by Donnelly & Kinder and Worthingtons Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr N Richards, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP [formerly McGrigors LLP].
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
1. Mr Smith gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr Gordon and Mr Taylor also gave evidence on their own behalf.
2. Mr Keith Halliday, Mr Dara Curley, Mr Peter Erwin, Mr Gary Jebb, Ms Margaret Leonard, Ms Frances Dalcz and Mr Raymond McEvoy gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.
THE CLAIM AND THE DEFENCE
3. All three claimants considered that they had been unfairly dismissed on account of redundancy. In other words their dismissals for misconduct had been dressed up to cover up that the respondent was operating some form of covert “redundancy-like” reduction in the workforce. The respondent disputed this arguing that the claimants were all fairly dismissed for misconduct.
THE RELEVANT LAW
4. The relevant law in relation to unfair dismissal is found in Article 130 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 which states:-
“(1) In determining for the purposes of this part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair it is for the employer to show:-
(a) the reason (or, if more than one), the principal reason (for the dismissal); and
(b) that it is either a reason falling within paragraph (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.
(2) A reason falls within this paragraph if it:-
(a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do;
(b) relates to the conduct of the employee (…).
(4) Where...
To continue reading
Request your trial