Ms D Szawica v Oasis and Warehouse Ltd (in administration) and Hilco Capital Ltd: 2204299/2020
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. In the ET3 and grounds of resistance presented on 27 September 2021, the Page 1 of 3 administrators of the first respondent granted consent for the claimant’s claim against the first respondent for a protective award to proceed.[2]In an email dated 14 October 2021, the solicitors acting for the claimant confirmed the withdrawal of all of the claimant’s claims against the second respondent and the withdrawal of all of the claimant’s claims against the first respondent except for the claim for a protective award. All of the claimant’s 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 claimant’s claims against the first respondent except for the claim for a protective award have been dismissed on withdrawal pursuant to rule 52.[3]That leaves only the claim 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 claimant’s claim 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 a protective award without a hearing.[5]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.[6]The first respondent proposed to make 43 redundancies at its Paul Street, London, 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.[7]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The dismissal took place on 15 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 claimant 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 3