THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  01246/08

CLAIMANT:		Radoslaw Marcin Czubek	

RESPONDENT:	55 North	

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal and unpaid notice pay are dismissed.  The claimant’s claim for the respondent’s failure to provide written reasons for dismissal is well-founded and the sum of £600 is hereby awarded.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mrs Ó Murray
Members:		Mr I Rosbotham
			Mr W Irwin

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear.
The respondent did not appear having indicated that he did not intend to appear.

The Claim

1.	The claimant’s claim was for unfair dismissal and unpaid notice pay and for compensation for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal.

2.	The claimant claimed that he was unfairly dismissed without notice because he had taken a short period of sickness.  The respondent’s case was that the claimant was sacked for gross misconduct having gone absent from work without informing anyone and, as he had previously had a final written warning, he was sacked summarily.

3.	The tribunal had before it the claim form and the response form.

4.	The tribunal considered its powers under Rule 27(5) and 27(6) and decided to proceed in the absence of the parties and considered the claim form and the response form.

5.	It is clear from the limited evidence revealed by the claim and response form that all the circumstances of termination of the claimant’s contract were in contention between the parties.

6.	The dismissal was admitted by the respondent which put the burden on the respondent to show the real reason for the dismissal and that it fell within one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissal.  Without hearing evidence from any party, the tribunal simply did not have enough information in its possession to establish the real reason for the dismissal.  

7.	If the respondent had established the reason for the dismissal and that it fell within one of the fair reasons for dismissal, the tribunal would then have gone on to look at whether the dismissal was fair in the circumstances.  Again the tribunal did not have enough information before it in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the dismissal was fair in the circumstances given the direct conflict in the limited evidence revealed by the papers.  The tribunal therefore dismisses the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal.  

8.	The claim for notice pay was inextricably bound up with the unfair dismissal claim in that the respondent’s claim was that notice pay was not payable as the dismissal was for gross misconduct.  As the onus was on the claimant to prove that notice pay was payable, that aspect of the claim was dismissed.

Written Reasons for Dismissal

9.	The right to receive written reasons for dismissal is outlined at Article 124 of the Employment Rights Order.  If the claimant requests such written reasons within 14 days of the effective date of termination (‘EDT’) and the employer does not provide the written reasons, the tribunal must award two weeks’ pay under Article 125.  In this case the claimant requested written reasons for dismissal by letter dated 9 July 2008.  It was agreed that the claimant’s employment ended on 8 July 2008 and his EDT is therefore 8 July 2008.

10.	The claimant’s claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal is well-founded as the respondent has not defended that aspect of the claim.  The remedy for this claim is 2 weeks’ gross pay which amounts to £600 and the Tribunal therefore orders the sum of £600 to be paid to the claimant.

11.	This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) (NI) Order 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	15 April 2009, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: