Ms A Verrall and others v Warehouse Fashions Ltd: 2204632/2020 to 2204642/2020
JUDGMENT
The following claims are struck out: 2204633/2020 (Miss Nayoung Moon) 2204634/2020 (Miss Sam Bushell) 2204635/2020 (Miss Emily Withers) 2204636/2020 (Miss Martha Wilkinson Roberts) 2204637/2020 (Miss Emma Hearn) 2204638/2020 (Miss Jo Longton) 2204639/2020 (Miss Leah White) 2204640/2020 (Miss Holly Worrel) 2204641/2020 (Miss Lauren Evans) 2204642/2020 (Miss Laura Bailey)REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 14 May 2021 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claims of claimant 2 to claimant 10 should not be struck out because the claimant had not complied with Rule 10(1)(b) – failure to provide claimants’ addresses.[2]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claims listed above are therefore struck out.[3]The claimant in claim number 2204632/2020 (Ms A Verrall) provided her address. Her claim has not been struck out and remains stayed.[4]Some of these claims appear to be duplicate claims. This judgment relates only to the claim numbers listed above. Any duplicate claims are not struck out. They also remain stayed.[1]The claimant was employed by the 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 respondent granted consent for the claimant’s claim against the respondent for a protective award to proceed. The respondent does not contest the claimant’s claim for a protective award, and does not put Page 1 of 3 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 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 respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site. The 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 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 15 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 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 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 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 respondent.[12]More information is contained in the annex to this judgment. Page 2 of 3[13]Notice of hearing in respect of the claimant’s other claims against the respondent will be sent separately.[1]Judgment in respect of the claim for a protective award was issued on 19 January 2022.[2]The claimant’s remaining claims are dismissed under rule 47.[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent, a national British fashion retailer which went into administration on 15 April 2020. The claimant brought an employment tribunal claim making claims for a protective award (for failure to consult), unfair dismissal, for a redundancy payment, for notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay. The claim 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 respondent granted consent for the claimant’s claim against the respondent to proceed. The respondent did not contest the claimant’s claim for a protective award; judgment for a protective award was issued dated 19 January 2022.[3]The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 25 March 2022 to say that the claimant’s pay claim would be decided at a hearing to be conducted by video on 19 July 2022. The tribunal made case management orders for the claimant to provide details of the amounts claimed, documents in support of her claim and a witness statement.[4]The claimant did not provide any information in accordance with the case management orders. The tribunal does not have details of the amounts claimed by the claimant and the amount of any payments or part payments Page 1 of 2 Case Number: 2204632/2020 she has received from the Redundancy Payments Service. The claimant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 19 July 2022. She did not contact the tribunal to say why she would not be attending. The claimant’s remaining claims have not been actively pursued, and it seems that the claimant has decided not to pursue her remaining claims.[5]In the circumstances, the claimant’s remaining claims are dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. This rule relates to non-attendance at a hearing.