Mr J Murphy and Mr N Powell v Nationwide Crash Repair Centres Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy: 1309341/2020 and 3311915/2020
REASONS
[1]The claimants listed in the attached schedule were each employed by the respondent at an establishment located off Lode Lane, Solihull.[2]On 4 September 2020, the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy.[3]The respondents did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with the provisions of s.188 and s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”).[4]The claimants have raised complaints as individuals (there being no relevant employee representatives) pursuant to section 189 of the Act seeking protective awards.[5]By email dated 14 September 2021 the respondents’ Administrators, with the agreement of some of the claimants, applied for a consent order with the effect of giving all claimants who had been employed by the respondent (and other companies within the group) and who had brought protective award claims and who had consented to the terms proposed a protective award of 90 days.[6]In my judgment it was not appropriate to accede to the terms of the proposed consent order as it appeared that some of the claimants worked in smaller establishments in respect of which it appeared there was unlikely to have been a proposal to make 20 or more employees redundant (see USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675.)[7]The proposed consent order also contained terms as to how the claims will rank in the Administration of the respondent companies which is not a matter which it is appropriate for the Tribunal to purport to rule on.[8]However, I am satisfied from information provided by the claimants to the Tribunal that Solihull was an establishment at which more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant.[9]In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to issue a Judgment for a 90- day protective award to the claimants who worked at that establishment and who had indicated their consent to the order proposed by the Administrators.[10]Given that the terms of the Judgment provide for a protective award for the maximum period, and that the Administrators and the Secretary of State have both indicated that they will not be actively resisting the claim, I also consider it appropriate to issue a Judgment in favour of those claimants who are only pursuing claims for a protective award, but who have not expressly indicated their agreement to the proposed consent order. Both groups of claimants based at Solihull are therefore included in the attached Schedule.[11]If any party considers that a claimant included in the Schedule has been wrongly included, then they are reminded that they may apply for a reconsideration of the Judgment. Further information is contained in the leaflet provided alongside the Judgment.