Smyth v Neil Wallace [2012] NIIT 01825_11IT (21 May 2012)

Smyth v Neil Wallace [2012] NIIT 01825_11IT (21 May 2012)

The respondent's conduct—paying the claimant less than older, less qualified employees due to age, failing to pay the National Minimum Wage, denying travel expenses, making unjustified criticisms, and re-employing another bricklayer at a higher wage—constituted a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 01825_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Mark Edward Daniel Smyth; Respondent: Neil Wallace
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Hearing; Respondent's Response Struck Out for Non Compliance
Outcome
Claimant succeeded on all claims; respondent ordered to pay compensation.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Age Discrimination, National Minimum Wage, Unauthorised Deduction of Wages, Failure to Provide Employment Particulars, Holiday Pay
Employment Law Labour Law Equality Law Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Age Discrimination National Minimum Wage Unauthorised Deduction of Wages +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Edward Daniel Smyth

Claimant

Neil Wallace

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Hearing; Respondent's Response Struck Out for Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on grounds of age
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed to pay the National Minimum Wage

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's conduct—paying the claimant less than older, less qualified employees due to age, failing to pay the National Minimum Wage, denying travel expenses, making unjustified criticisms, and re-employing another bricklayer at a higher wage—constituted a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, amounting to constructive unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination. The respondent also failed to provide employment particulars and made unauthorised deductions from wages.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeded on all claims; respondent ordered to pay compensation.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant £1,120.16 for unfair dismissal (basic and compensatory award)
  • Respondent to pay claimant £620.16 for failure to provide employment particulars