Miss S Goodread v Nationwide Crash Repair Centres Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy: 1309647/2020
JUDGMENT
This was a determination on papers with no attendance by any party.[1]The claimant is permitted to amend her claim to add a claim for a protective award under s.188 Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[2]The Tribunal makes a protective award in favour of the claimant and orders the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020.[3]The claimant’s claims in respect of a redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay are dismissed on withdrawal.[4]The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is not affected by this judgment.[5]There is no order requiring any party to pay or reimburse another party’s costs or fees. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees.[6]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the first respondent at an establishment located off Lode Lane, Solihull.[2]On 4 September 2020, the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.[3]The first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant and other employees in accordance with the provisions of s.188 and s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”). Case No:13096472020[4]By a claim form presented on 10 October 2020 the claimant made various claims in respect of her redundancy, but omitted to include a claim for a protective award. By subsequent correspondence the claimant has indicated that she wishes to amend his claim to include a claim for a protective award. The respondent has raised no objections and I have therefore permitted that amendment.[5]By email dated 14 September 2021 the first respondent’s Administrators, with the agreement of some other claimants who are also former employees of the respondent, 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 have given Judgment on protective award claims in respect of various establishments where I could be satisfied from information provided by the claimants that more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant. In those cases, I have given Judgment for those claimants which were listed in the proposed consent order and those claimants which were not. I considered it appropriate to do so as the terms of the Judgment provide for a protective award for the maximum period, and because the Administrators and the Secretary of State have both indicated that they will not be actively resisting the claim.[9]I am satisfied from information provided by Miss Goodread and other claimants to the Tribunal that Solihull was an establishment at which more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant.[10]If any party considers that this Judgment should not have been issued in favour of Mis Goodread, 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.