Mr L Jones and others v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd (in administration) and others: 1310020/2020 and others
REASONS
[1]The claimants listed in the attached schedule were each employed by the respondent within its “Head Office and Support Services” function.[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]The group of claimants to which this Judgment related performed national management roles, national management support roles, regional management roles, regional management support roles, or ‘roaming’ technical roles. They were either based at the respondent’s Head Office or they worked across a number of the respondent’s sites, which meant that they had no single geographic base. Their employment was administrated by the respondents’ HR function as a single group, namely, “Head Office and Support Services”. I am satisfied from information provided by the claimants to the Tribunal that this group of employees formed one establishment for the purposes of the Protective Award claims. I am also satisfied that there were more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant within this establishment.[9]In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to issue a Judgment for a 90- day protective award to the claimants who worked within this function 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 who were part of “Head Office and Support Services” are therefore included in the attached Schedule.[11]In some cases the claimants have brought a claim against a company which is not a legal entity. Most often, they have missed the word ‘Limited’ from the company name, but in some cases the name itself seemed to be confused. As part of this Judgment I have amended the respondent’s name in cases where this seems to have happened. This should ensure that the claimants are able to recover money from the redundancy payments service more smoothly. If, in any particular case, the wrong respondent is named in the Schedule, the claimant may write to the Tribunal asking for this to be corrected.[12]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.