Mr E Ekpenyong and others v Castleoak Care Partnerships Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 1601780/2021 and others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1601780/2021

Between

Mr E Ekpenyong and othersClaimant

Castleoak Care Partnerships Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial StrategyRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Howden-Evans

In person for claimant

Not represented for respondent

Date 3 August 2022

JUDGMENT

Having considered the pleadings, the Employment Judge is satisfied that each Claimant’s complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, of a failure by the First Respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act, is well founded. The Tribunal orders the First Respondent to pay a protective award under section 189(3) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to each of the 37 Claimants named in the Schedule attached to this Judgment, a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 25th October 2021.

REASONS

[1]Having carefully considered the pleadings, the Employment Judge notes the First Respondent accepts the Claimants and the majority of the 69 staff employed by the First Respondent were made redundant on or around 25th October 2021.

[2]The First Respondent does not contest the Claimants’ assertion that they were all employees at one establishment, namely Raglan House.

[3]The First Respondent does not contest the Claimants’ assertion that they are all “affected employees” for the purposes of s189(1)d Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

[4]The First Respondent does not contest the Claimants’ assertion that the First Respondent did not have a recognised trade union.

[5]The First Respondent does not contest the Claimants’ assertion that the First Respondent completely failed to give affected employees the opportunity to elect representatives and completely failed to consult with the Claimants through a recognised trade union or elected body of employee representatives.

[6]The First Respondent does not contest the Claimants’ assertion that the 37 Claimants (and others) were dismissed without notice and without any prior warning or consultation on or around 25th October 2021.

[7]Having carefully considered the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim and the Responses of both Respondents, the Employment Judge is satisfied that the individual claimants are each entitled to a protective award under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

[8]If either Respondent wishes to apply for me to reconsider this decision, they should write to the other parties and the Tribunal within 14 days of this Judgment being sent to them, explaining why it is in the interests of justice for me to reconsider this judgment.