Mr D Cook and others v YTM Group Ltd (in administration) and The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 1802175/2019 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]The First Respondent failed to elect or consult with appropriate employee representatives, in breach of its duty under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[2]The claims for a protective award succeed in respect of each named Claimant.[3]The First Respondent is ordered to pay to the following Claimants, employed at the Castleford establishment, remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 11th January 2019: J. Penny; T. Johnson; J. Smith; N. Rutter; D. Pawson; V. Croft; P. McLean; D. Clayton; J Miles; A. Carroll; D. Henry; R. Fleming; R. Game; E. Esteva; A. Thornhill; W. Beasley[4]The First Respondent is ordered to pay to the following Claimants, employed at the Pontefract establishment, remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 14th February 2019: D. Cook; P. Jones; G. Jones; C. Smith; M. Clarkson; I. Westwood Case: 1802175/2019 and others (see Schedule) 2[5]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 regulations 6, 7 and 8 apply to this award.[6]The First Respondent is accordingly advised of its duties under the Regulations and any award made will be postponed pending any service of a recoupment notice by the Secretary of State in respect of relevant benefits received by the Claimant in the prescribed period and only the balance of any remuneration due will then be payable directly to the Claimant.REASONS
[1]Where collective redundancies are contemplated at any establishment within a 90 day period the employer is under a duty to elect or consult with appropriate employee representatives, under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[2]We have heard unchallenged evidence, which we accept, that at both sites the First Respondent neither recognised a trade union nor had any already elected representative body of workers with which to consult. The individual Claimants are therefore the appropriate persons to bring these complaints. Case: 1802175/2019 and others (see Schedule) 2[3]We also accept that there was no consultation whatsoever prior to the redundancies, involving in total more than 20 employees at each site, being effected. In those circumstances the Claimants are entitled to the maximum 90 days protective award.[4]The first employee to be made redundant at the Castleford premises was Mr Miles, whom was “laid off” on 11th January. All other dismissals were effected on 14th February when the administrators came on site.