L Sheady and Others v Axiom Ince Ltd (In Administration) and Others: 2200230/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The default judgment of the Tribunal is that the Respondent failed to comply with its duties pursuant to Section 188 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA), and that each of the Claimants is entitled to a protective award of 90 days’ gross pay.REASONS
[2]The claims against the Respondent, to include various associated group companies, had been listed as a single multiple. I have been assigned responsibility for the multiple. It is understood that there are approximately 357 Claimants some of which are listed as part of multiples and others as individual claims. For ease of reference an appendix is attached to this Judgment setting out the individual claim numbers. Whilst I have asked the parties to provide a consolidated list of Claimants nothing further has been provided and this therefore represents the most complete document in my possession.[3]I understand that some of the individual Claimants may be seeking judgments in respect of other matters than protective awards. For the avoidance of doubt this judgment relates solely to the Claimants’ entitlement to protective awards and does not compromise their ability to pursue claims in respect of any other matter. However, it would not be practicable to address individual claims, beyond the entitlement to protective awards, in a single judgment given the number of individual Claimants and their specific individual circumstances and potential claims. Further, the consent of the administrators and the Secretary of State for a default judgment to be issued has been given only in respect of protective awards. Relevant background 1 of 4[4]On 3 October 2023 the majority of the Claimants received emails giving notice of termination of their employment with immediate effect. The Claimants were dismissed without notice and without any warning or consultation. There was no recognised Trade Union.[5]On 26 October 2023, the Respondent was placed into administration. The administrators are Alex Cadwallader and Neil Bennett of Leonard Curtis (the Joint Administrators).[6]The Claimants contend that the Respondent failed to comply with its duties pursuant to s.188 of TULCRA in that it:(a) Failed to give affected employees the opportunity to elect representatives;(b) Failed to provide the required information under s.188(4) of TULCRA;(c) Failed to inform or consult with appropriate representatives of the affected employees;(d) Failed to provide information about the proposed redundancies in writing prior to their dismissal on the grounds of redundancy;(e) Failed to consult with the Claimants on ways of avoiding the dismissals and/or reducing the number of employees to be dismissed.[7]In an HR1 completed by Miles Fish, Director on 3 October 2023 he advised the Government’s Insolvency Service that the Respondent had ceased to trade immediately as result of no longer having insurance to be able to provide advice and being served with an intervention notice by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. He stated that the redundancies would take effect between 3 October and 31 October 2023.[8]Mr Fish provided a breakdown of the redundancies by location comprising of: 1 Spring Villa Road, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 7EB 30 redundancies 103 Colmore Road, Birmingham B3 3AG 9 redundancies 9-13 Cambridge Park, Wanstead, London E11 2PU 23 redundancies 33 Charles Street, Cardiff CF10 2GA 56 redundancies 40 Grace Church Street, London EC3V 0BT 134 redundancies Hyatt Place, 50-60 Broomfield Road, Chelmsford CM1 1SW 2 redundancies Basepoint, Crab Apple Way, Vale Park, Evesham WR11 1GP 7 redundancies Joseph’s Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds LS3 1AB 152 redundancies 100 Old Hall Street, The Plaza, Liverpool L3 9QJ 2 redundancies 2 of 4 City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BT 14 redundancies Staff based fully remotely 11 redundancies.[9]In a letter from the London Central Tribunal the Joint Administrators and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (the Secretary of State) were are asked to make any written representations by 4pm on 6 May 2024 in respect of my proposal to issue a default judgment for protective awards of 90 days’ gross pay for each of the Claimants.[10]No response was served by theJoint Administrators. The Secretary of State served a response as an interested party in the role of statutory guarantor, and neither supports nor resists the claims for protective awards. The response was solely in relation to the Claimants’ entitlement to protective awards.[11]The Secretary of State stated that it did not object in principle to the Tribunal deciding the issue of protective awards on the papers without a formal hearing.[12]The Secretary of State noted that some of the claims referred to other claims in addition to a protective award such as redundancy pay, notice pay, arrears of wages and/or holiday pay but the claims were submitted before the insolvency of the Respondent on 26 October 2023. The Secretary of State understands that claims for any other elements had been withdrawn following receipt of payment from the National Insurance Fund.[13]The Secretary of State requested that the Tribunal confines its judgment to the description of employees covered by the protective award and does not attempt to quantify the award that may be payable from the National Insurance Fund.[14]In an email of 28 February 2024 the Joint Administrators provided their consent to the continuation of the proceedings against the Respondent and advised that any claim awarded as payable, and not paid by the National Insurance Fund, will rank as a claim in the administration. The Joint Administrators did not intend to participate in the proceedings. Conclusion and judgment[15]All of the Claimants were dismissed without any consultation with appropriate employee representatives and with a failure to provide information about the proposed redundancies in writing prior to their dismissal on the grounds of redundancy.[16]The Tribunal issues a declaration that the Respondent has failed to comply with its obligations under s.188 of TULCRA.[17]The Tribunal considers that a protective period of 90 days from the date of individual dismissals which the Tribunal understands took place between 3 and 31 October 2023, should apply. As the Tribunal does not have the dates of individual dismissals for simplicity the protected period is 90 days starting on 4 October 2023, save where in individual cases a Claimants’ employment was terminated at a later date, in which case the protected period is 90 days from the date of their dismissal. 3 of 4[18]I do not consider that any basis has been put forward pursuant to which it would be appropriate to reduce the protective awards from the 90 day period and therefore all of the Claimants are entitled to 90 days’ gross pay. As requested by the Secretary of State their individual entitlements will be calculated by the National Insurance Fund, and to the extent to which their full entitlements are not recovered from the National Insurance Fund, their claims will rank as unsecured claims in the administration of the Respondent.