Miss K Skittrall v Warehouse Fashions Ltd (in administration) and Others: 2204297/2020
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the first respondent, a national British fashion retailer which went into administration on 15 April 2020. The claimant brought an employment tribunal claim which was stayed pending consent from the administrators of the respondent.[2]In the ET3 and grounds of resistance presented on 27 September 2021, the administrators of the first respondent granted consent for the claimant’s claim Page 1 of 3 against the first respondent for a protective award to proceed. The first respondent does not contest the claimant’s claim for a protective award, and does not put forward any representations to the effect that the protected period should be less than 90 days.[3]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 a protective award, without a hearing.[4]The tribunal makes the following findings on the information provided, in respect of the claimant’s claim for a protective award for breaches of the collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Act.[5]The first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site. The first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with the provisions of section 188 of the Act 1992. There was no proper warning or consultation with the claimant and no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A of the Act. In the circumstances, the first respondent was in breach of the duty under section 188.[6]The first of the dismissals to which the claim relates took place on 15 April 2020. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The dismissal took place on 30 April 2020.[7]The claimant’s claim was presented in time after Acas early conciliation.[8]The tribunal makes an award under section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning with 15 April 2020.[9]The first respondent is advised of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’).[10]Within 10 days of this decision being promulgated or as soon as is reasonably practicable, the first respondent must comply with the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Regulations and, in particular, must supply to the Secretary of State the following information in writing: a) the name, address and national insurance number of every employee to whom the award relates; and b) the date of termination of the employment of each such employee.[11]The first respondent will not be required to make any payment under the protective awards made until it has received a recoupment notice from the Secretary of State or notification that the Secretary of State does not intend to serve a recoupment notice having regard to the provisions of Regulation 7(2). The Secretary of State must normally serve such recoupment notice or notification on the employer within 21 days of receipt of the required information from the first respondent. Page 2 of 3[12]More information is contained in the annex to this judgment. Pay claims[13]In her email of 23 November 2021 the claimant says she wishes to make other pay claims against the respondent for notice pay and holiday. However, her claim form read as a whole does not include claims for notice pay or holiday pay. The claimant refers only to a claim for a protective award for failure to consult. Claims against second respondent[14]The claimant has also brought her claims against Deloitte LLP, the administrators of the first respondent. On 7 September 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide representations as to why the claim against Deloitte LLP should not be struck out. The claimant’s response of 21 September 2021 does not set out reasons why the claim against Deloitte LLP should not be struck out. The actions taken by Deloitte LLP referred to by the claimant in her email are actions taken by Deloitte LLP in its capacity as the administrators of the first respondent, not as employers of the claimant. The claimant was employed by the first respondent. The claim against Deloitte LLP is struck out.