Diamond v Victor and Helen Bowman T/A Bo... Department for Employment and ... [2011] NIIT 01903_10IT (05 April 2011)

Diamond v Victor and Helen Bowman T/A Bo... Department for Employment and ... [2011] NIIT 01903_10IT (05 April 2011)

The calculation of weekly pay should reflect the claimant’s normal contractual hours prior to the temporary reduction, as the short-time working was a temporary measure and not a new contract; the second respondent’s calculation was therefore incorrect.

Citation
[2011] NIIT 01903_10IT
Parties
Claimant: Dominic David Diamond; First Respondent: Victor and Helen Bowman T/A Bowman Windows; Second Respondent: Department for Employment and Learning
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed against the second respondent; first respondent dismissed from proceedings.
Legal Topics
Redundancy Pay, Notice Pay, Holiday Pay, Calculation of Weekly Pay, Short Time Working, Contract Interpretation
Employment Law Redundancy Pay Notice Pay Holiday Pay Calculation of Weekly Pay Short Time Working Contract Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic David Diamond

Claimant

Victor and Helen Bowman T/A Bowman Windows

First Respondent

Department for Employment and Learning

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the calculation of the claimant’s weekly pay by the second respondent was correct under Article 17 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  2. 2 Whether the period of reduced hours constituted a new contract or a temporary variation under the existing contract

Ratio Decidendi

The calculation of weekly pay should reflect the claimant’s normal contractual hours prior to the temporary reduction, as the short-time working was a temporary measure and not a new contract; the second respondent’s calculation was therefore incorrect.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against the second respondent; first respondent dismissed from proceedings.

Orders

  • Second respondent to pay claimant £1477.00 as unpaid redundancy entitlement.
  • Second respondent to pay claimant £746.00 as unpaid notice pay.