Mr A Abdalla and 92 others v Total Polyfilm Ltd (in administration) and The Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy: 1807432/2019 and others (see Schedule)
REASONS
[1]Both Respondents have given consent to this hearing being conducted by a judge sitting alone, without members.[2]The Claimants were all employed at either Brighouse or Preston (see attached schedule). At each of these establishments the First Respondent dismissed more than 20 employees within a period of 90 days or less.[3]In respect of all those employees dismissed with immediate effect on 18th September 2019 there was no effective collective consultation.[4]Similarly in respect of the Claimants Butterworth and Murphy who were dismissed between 18th and 24th September 2019, there was no effective consolation.[5]In respect of the 9 further Claimants who were retained for short periods after 24th September, I accept the unchallenged evidence in the witness statement of Mr Utley that he was wholly unaware of any meeting with any elected representatives chosen from the remaining 10 retained employees (of whom he was one) ever having taken place as alleged in the ET3 on 24th September 2019. I find therefore, on balance, that no such meeting in fact happened.[6]There is therefore an issue as to whether any representatives purportedly appointed after the commencement of administration on 18th September 2019 were in fact appropriate representatives with authority to represent any of the employees.[7]The First Respondent has failed to show (under section 189 1(A) of the 1992 Act) that any such representatives were appropriately elected, and the tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear the complaints of those individual Claimants who were retained after 24th September 2019.[8]There is no reason in these circumstances why the period of the protective awards should be less than 90 days.