Mahood v Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett [2012] NIIT 01355_11IT (18 January 2012)

01355_11IT Mahood v Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett [2012] NIIT 01355_11IT (18 January 2012) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Mahood v Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett Park Gate Foods Ltd Mr Michael Beckett [2012] NIIT 01355_11IT (18 January 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/01355_11IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 1355_11IT, [2012] NIIT 01355_11IT [ New search ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS CASE REF: 1355/11 CLAIMANT: Thomas Mahood RESPONDENTS: 1. Park Gate Foods Ltd 2. Mr Michael Beckett CASE REF: 1356/11 CLAIMANT: Mark Hughes RESPONDENTS: 1. Park Gate Foods Ltd 2. Mr Michael Beckett CASE REF: 1358/11 CLAIMANT: Rasa Mahood RESPONDENTS: 1. Park Gate Foods Ltd 2. Mr Michael Beckett CASE REF: 1361/11 CLAIMANT: Lorraine Spiers RESPONDENTS: 1. Park Gate Foods Ltd 2. Mr Michael Beckett DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW The decision of the tribunal is that the claimants’ claims disclose a claim for a protective award. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the second preliminary issue. Constitution of Tribunal: Chairman (sitting alone) Mr B Greene Appearances: The claimants were represented by Mr Andrew Meeks of 26 Green Road, Conlig, Co Down. The respondents were represented by Mr Michael Beckett. The Issues 1. Whether the claimants’ claim forms disclose claims for a protective award? 2. If not, should the claimants be at liberty to amend their claim forms to add a claim for a protective award? The Facts 3. Each of the claimants brought claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, breach of contract, unauthorised deduction of wages, right to receive employment particulars, failure to consult, right to receive notice pay and holiday pay. 4. Each of the claimants withdrew their claims for unfair dismissal and the claims were dismissed by the tribunal. 5. Subsequently the claimants withdrew their claims for redundancy payments and those claims were also dismissed. 6. Redundancy Payments Branch have made payments in relation to the claimants’ claims for notice pay and holiday pay. 7. The claimants sought at the Case Management Discussion on 14 November 2011 to contend that there existed within the claim forms a claim for a protective award. Consequently the Pre-Hearing Review issues were scheduled for hearing today. 8. Each of the claimants’ claim forms at paragraph 7.4 is in identical terms. So far as relevant to the issues before the tribunal they state:- “(1) We arrived into work as normal on 31st March 2011, at approximately 10 am. We were called up to the canteen for a meeting, Michael Beckett (position unknown) introduced representatives from FPM Chartered Accountants (Michael McQuade) and announced that from today we were redundant, we were given form RP1 to complete and sign, we were also handed a letter dated 31/03/11 informing us that the company were “restructuring” and therefore we are being made redundant, … (2) We were not invited to any meeting to discuss our redundancy or any alternatives we may have had which might have avoided the redundancy situation, … (3) We believe we had a right to be informed by the company regarding our continuity of employment, we believe the company knew well in advance of 31/03/11 of the pending redundancies, we believe that park gate food ltd showed a lack of compassion and statutory procedures throughout this process regarding employees rights and employees family and financial commitments. (4) Failure to consult.” Submissions 9. Mr Meeks contended that the above statements in the claim forms, whilst not using the words a protective award, amount in fact to a claim for a protective award. 10. Mr Beckett disputed that there was a claim for protective award. He outlined to the tribunal the difficulties faced by the first respondent in dealing with the financial situation before the company, the advice taken and the action that they took. Most of his comments related to matters that would be properly before a tribunal were it to be considering whether the claimants are entitled to a protective award. 11. Mr Beckett did not rely on any argument authority or wording of the claim forms, save the absence of the use of the words protective award, to support his contention that the claim forms did not disclose a claim for a protective award. Reasons 12. The chairman having considered the claim forms and the submissions of the parties concluded that although the claim forms did not use the phrase protective award it was clear from the substance of the claim forms that the claimants were complaining about the failure of the first respondent to consult and also that in so doing they were alleging that the first respondent was in breach of a statutory duty to consult. 13. Where 20 or more employees are being made redundant at a single place within 90 days an employer is required to consult with affected employers and to begin the consultation 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect. (Article 216 The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996). The only consultation here was on the day of the redundancies the 31 March 2011 when the employees were spoken to for four hours by the first respondent and its advisors. 14. It is clear from the substance of the claim form that the claimants are making a claim for a protective award. 15. The decision was given orally at the hearing. 16. The claims will now be relisted on 20 March 2011 to deal with outstanding issues in these claims which are:- (1) Whether the claimants are entitled to protective awards, and if so, in what amount? (2) Whether the respondents failed to provide particulars of employment to the claimants? (3) Whether the respondents breached the claimants’ contracts of employment by failing to provide written particulars of employment? (4) Whether all claims against the second respondent should be dismissed? Chairman: Date and place of hearing: 4 January 2012, Belfast. Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/01355_11IT.html