Ms L Peggs and Others v Oasis Fashions Ltd (in administration) and Hilco Capital Ltd: 2204269/2020 and Others (schedule of claimants attached)
REASONS
[1]The claimants were employed by the first respondent, a national British fashion retailer which went into administration on 15 April 2020. The claimants brought employment tribunal claims which were stayed. The first Page 1 of 4 respondent is in administration. In the ET3 and grounds of resistance presented on 27 September 2021, the administrators of the first respondent granted their consent for the claimants’ claims against the first respondent for a protective award to proceed.[2]In an email dated 14 October 2021, the solicitors acting for the claimants confirmed the withdrawal of all of the claimants’ claims against the second respondent and the withdrawal of all of the claimants’ claims against the first respondent except for the claims for a protective award. All of the claimants’ claims against the second respondent have been dismissed on withdrawal pursuant to rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. All of the claimants’ claims against the first respondent except for the claims for a protective award have been dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52.[3]That leaves only the claims for a protective award. The solicitors acting for the administrators of the first respondent confirmed in an email dated 28 October 2021 that the first respondent does not contest the claimants’ claims for a protective award of 90 days.[4]On consideration of the file of proceedings it is possible to issue judgment against the first respondent under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 in respect of the claim for protective awards without a hearing.[5]The tribunal makes the following findings on the information provided, in respect of the claimants’ claims for a protective award in respect of breaches of the collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Act.[6]The first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Paul Street, London, site. The first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with the provisions of section 188 of the Act. There was no proper warning or consultation with the claimants and no employee representatives were appointed for consultation as required by section 188A of the Act.[7]The claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy. The first of the dismissals took place on 15 April 2020 and the last of the claimants was dismissed on 30 April 2020.[8]In the circumstances, the first respondent was in breach of the duty under section 188. The tribunal makes an award under section 189 in favour of the claimants for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning with 15 April 2020.[9]The first respondent is advised of the provisions of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996. Further information is contained in the annex to this judgment. Page 2 of 4