Mr R Williamson and others v Kace Holdings Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 1400334/2023 and others
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Judge sitting alone is that:[1]The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well founded.[2]The tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the twelve claimants named below who were employees of the respondent at its premises at The Ringtower Centre, Moorside Road, Winchester, SO23 7RZ, who were all dismissed as redundant on 1 February 2022 and orders the respondent to pay those employees remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 1 February 2022REASONS
[1]This is a claim for a protective award brought by the following twelve claimants by reference to their Tribunal Claim numbers, who are collectively referred to in this Judgment as “the Claimants”:[2]Mr Richard Williamson 1400334/2023; Mr Harry Crowson 1400336/2023; Mr Alan Painter 1400337/2023; Miss Claudia Robotin 1400338/2023; Mr Luke Puig 1400339/2023; Mr Luke Wills 1400340/2023; Mr Lukasz MichalakDenman 1400341/2023; Mr Richard Hale 1400342/2023; Mr Justyn Rhead 1400343/2023; Ms Amanda Andrews 1400344/2023; Mr Barnaby Howe 1400345/2023; and Mr Simon Griffin 1400346/2023.[3]I have heard from Mr Williamson who gave evidence, and each of the Claimants prepared a written statement to the effect that they agreed with his evidence which was true. I have considered the evidence before me, both oral and documentary, and I have considered the legal and factual submissions made by and on behalf of the respective parties. I find the following facts proven on the balance of probabilities.[4]The first respondent company Kace Holdings Ltd entered voluntary creditors liquidation on 14 February 2022. Some two weeks before on 1 February 2022 the Claimants were all informed that their employment was terminated by reason of redundancy with immediate effect on that date (1 February 2022). The Claimants were twelve of 41 employees who were all made redundant on that date. They were all based at and/or worked from the first respondent’s Head Office at The Ringtower Centre, Moorside Road, Winchester, SO23 7RZ.[5]The first respondent did not recognise any independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, consultation and negotiation.[6]The first respondent had not appointed any employee representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, consultation and negotiation, and nor did it take any steps to arrange for the election of the same.[7]The respondent failed to undertake any or any adequate consultation with the Claimants prior to the dismissals.[8]Having found the above facts I now apply the law.[9]The relevant law is in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consultation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”).[10]Section 188(1) of TULRCA provides as follows: “Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, the employer shall consult about the dismissals all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals”. S188(1A) provides that "The consultation shall begin in good time and in any event –(a) where the employer is proposing to dismiss 100 or more employees as mentioned in subsection (1), at least 90 days, and(b) otherwise, at least 30 days, before the first of the dismissals takes effect.[11]S 188(1B) provides that: “For the purposes of this section the appropriate representatives of any affected employees are –(a) if the employees of a 12. description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by their employer, representatives of the trade union, or(b) in any other case, whichever of the following employee representatives the employer chooses:- (i) employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees otherwise than for the purposes of this section who (having regard to the purposes for and the method by which they were appointed or elected) have authority from those employees to receive information and to be consulted about the proposed dismissals on their behalf; (ii) employee representatives elected by the affected employees, for the purposes of this section, in an election satisfying the requirements of section 188A(1).”[13]S 188(2): provides that; “The consultation shall include consultation about ways of –(a) avoiding the dismissals,(b) reducing the numbers of employees to be dismissed, and(c) mitigating the consequences of the dismissals, and shall be undertaken by the employer with a view to reaching agreement with the appropriate representatives.”[14]Section 188(4) provides: “For the purposes of the consultation the employer shall disclose in writing to the appropriate representatives –(a) the reasons for his proposals,(b) the numbers and descriptions of employees whom it is proposed to dismiss as redundant,(c) the total number of employees of any such description employed by the employer at the establishment in question,(d) the proposed method of selecting the employees who may be dismissed,(e) the proposed method of carrying out the dismissals, with due regard to any agreed procedure, including the period over which any dismissals are to take effect,(f) the proposed method of calculating the amount of any redundancy payments to be made (otherwise than in compliance with the obligation imposed by or by virtue of any enactment) to employees who may be dismissed,(g) the number of agency workers working temporarily for and under the supervision and direction of the employer,(h) the parts of the employer's undertaking in which those agency workers are working, and(i) the type of work are those agency workers are carrying out.”[15]Section 188(5) provides: “That information shall be given to each of the appropriate representatives by being delivered to them, or sent by post to an address notified by them to the employer, or in the case of representatives of a trade union sent by post to the union at the address of its head or main office.”[16]In this case the first respondent failed to comply with a number of requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the Claimants’ claim to that effect is well founded. This Tribunal therefore makes the protective award as indicated above.