THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1494/10

CLAIMANT:			John Orr

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Williams Industrial Services Ltd
				2.	Northern Ireland Water Ltd

DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims are dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr Patrick Kinney

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The first-named respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The second-named respondent was represented by Mr Barr, Solicitor, of Dundas & Wilson CSLLP, Solicitors.

Facts

1.	The claimant lodged the claim for redundancy pay and notice pay against the      first-named respondent.  In its response the first-named respondent denied liability and referred to an earlier tribunal decision in which the worker was found by the tribunal to be an employee of the second-named respondent.  On this basis the second-named respondent was joined to proceedings.

2.	Mr Barr has appeared today on behalf of the second-named respondent.  There is no appearance and no explanation for the absence of either the claimant or the first-named respondent.  Mr Barr in his submissions pointed out that the claimant in fact made no claim against the second-named respondent and has identified the first-named respondent as his employer.  However, I consider that there is insufficient information on the papers to satisfy me that it is appropriate to make a finding in the claimant’s favour.  The tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing evidence from the claimant.  I therefore determine that the claimant’s claims be dismissed.

3.	Mr Barr has made an application for the second-named respondent’s costs.  He seeks these against the first-named respondent.  He points out that the         second-named respondent was only joined as a result of the first-named respondent’s response which identified an industrial tribunal case.  What the       first-named respondent did not identify was that that decision was successfully challenged by the second-named respondent in the Court of Appeal.  He felt that there was no liability attaching to the second-named respondent and that the second-named respondent was entitled to their costs.  

4.	I am not determining an issue of costs in this decision as the first-named respondent has not an opportunity to respond.  Mr Barr will take the instructions of his clients as to whether or not a costs application is to be pursued.  If it is, then he will make written submissions in support of his application for costs to be provided to the first-named respondent and the tribunal by 14 December 2010.  The         first-named respondent will then have until 14 January 2011 to provide any written submissions to the tribunal and to the second-named respondent.  A costs hearing will be held on:-

		Friday 28 January 2011 at 10.00 am;

	unless the parties confirm that that costs hearing is not required.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	23 November 2010, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: