Mr R Trigg and others v SSB Group (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 1800483/2024 and others
REASONS
[1]It is clear from the evidence given to me today, principally by Mr Haigh, and corroborated by the other Claimants who were also in attendance, that all the above named Claimants were within a group of more than 20 employees – including all those other Claimants in this consolidated claim who are not yet included within the term of this judgment - employed at a single establishment Navigation House, 1 South Quay Drive, Sheffield or the immediately adjacent building, and who were made redundant within a 90 day period following the first such redundancy on 29th November 2023.[2]It is further clear from the evidence which I have heard and accept that there was no consultation before dismissing all affected employees as redundant 2. Absent any recognized trade union or other representative body upon the failure to elect employee representatives to consult on the collective redundancies each employee so dismissed, which includes all the individually named Claimants, is entitled to present a claim for a protective award.[3]There has been no Response submitted on behalf of the First Respondent, and therefore no explanation offered for the failure to consult even though it is apparent from ye papers that the business was in financial difficulties from at least about September 2023.[4]It is therefore just and equitable to make the awards for the maximum 90 day period (though it is acknowledged that under the relevant legislation the Second Respondent will not be obliged to make payment for that full period).[5]The Recoupment Provisions apply, though it is anticipated that no monies will actually be received directly from the insolvent former employer, but that the incidence of benefits will be separately and further accounted for under the relevant regulations when determining the amount payable by the Second Respondent from the redundancy insurance fund