Mr P Cooke v STA Travel Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 2206487/2020

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2206487/2020, 2402117/2021

Between

Mr P CookeClaimant

STA Travel Limited (in voluntary liquidation)Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Spencer

Date 14 July 2022

JUDGMENT

ON RECONSIDERATION The claimant’s application to reconsider the judgment of

REASONS

[1]The claimant in this case has issued 2 claims seeking a protective award for failure to consult in a collective redundancy situation. The first claim was accepted by London Central Employment Tribunal on 1 October 2020 and given case number 2206487/2020 (“the First Claim”). The second claim was filed out of time at Manchester Employment Tribunal and given case number 2402117/2021 (“the Second Claim”).

[2]Following a strike out warning, on 23 March 2022 Employment Judge Spencer at London Central ET struck out the First Claim because it was a duplicate claim.

[3]On 13 April 2022 I conducted a preliminary hearing at Manchester ET relating to the Second Claim. That was to decide whether the Second Claim should be allowed to proceed despite being filed out of time. At that hearing it became apparent that the claimant had filed the First Claim in time. At the hearing the claimant explained that he did not respond to the strike out warning in the First Claim because he was actively engaged with the Second Claim so felt it was correct that there was a duplication of claims.

[4]The end result was that claimant’s in-time First Claim was struck out because it duplicated the out of time Second Claim. I therefore directed that consideration of whether the Second Claim should be allowed to Case No: 2206487/2020

[5]proceed should be adjourned until 12 May 2022 to give the claimant time to apply for a reconsideration of the judgment striking out the First Claim.

[6]On 18 April 2022 the claimant applied to London Central ET for reconsideration of the strike out judgment. The file relating to the First Claim was transferred to Manchester ET on 4 May 2022.

[7]I consider it is in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment striking out the First Claim. There are duplicate claims, but it is in the interests of justice that the claim filed in time be allowed to proceed. The Second Claim will be struck out as a duplicate of the First Claim.

[8]A judgment making a protective award in favour of the claimant will be issued separately.

[1]The respondent failed to consult with the claimant in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 199 (“the 1992 Act”)

[2]Under Section 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the claimant and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 September 2020.

[3]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.

[1]The claimant claimed a protective award in respect of breach of the collective consultation requirements. The claimant was based at St George’s House, 56 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 3NQ (“St. George’s House”).

[2]The Tribunal makes the following findings based upon the claim:a. The respondent had no trade union recognised for collective bargaining, consultation or negotiation with the workforce. There were no elected representatives;

b. The first respondent’s business ceased trading on 2 September 2020. The first of the redundancies took effect on that date. There was no consultation with the claimant or his colleagues;

c. The respondent entered into creditors voluntary liquidation on 6 October 2020;

d. The respondent employed over 20 employees at St.George’s House. The total number employed at that establishment was in the region of 100. All of those employees were dismissed on 2 September 2020.

[3]The requirement to consult under s.188 of the 1992 Act applies where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. The Tribunal is satisfied that the obligation to consult did apply in relation to St George’s House.

[4]There was no proper warning or notice given to, or consultation with, the workforce. No employee representatives had been elected or appointed for any such consultation within Section 188A of the 1992 Act. The dismissals were put into effect without any consultation or information being provided in writing in advance.

[5]In these circumstances, the respondent was in breach of the duty under Section 188 of the 1992 Act and the Tribunal makes an award under Section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 2 September 2020.

[6]The respondent is advised of the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, such that, within 10 days of the decision in these proceedings being promulgated or as soon as is reasonably practicable, the respondent must comply with the provisions of Regulation 6 of the 1996 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 the claimant; and

b. the date of termination of the employment of the claimant.

[7]The respondent will not be required to make any payment under the protective award 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. NOTE

[8]A protective award is a two-stage process. The Tribunal at this stage makes no financial award but gives a judgment that the claimant is entitled to a protective award in the terms set out above. The claimant must then seek payment of his award from the respondent (or the Secretary of State), quantifying the same.

[9]Failure to pay (should that occur), or any dispute as to the amount payable, then becomes a matter for a further separate claim under s.192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for payment of the award.