Ms H Elkington and others v The Secretary of State for Business, and Energy and Industrial Strategy and Lady Ottoline Ltd (T/a The Lady Ottoline) (dissolved): 2207367/2017 and others
JUDGMENT
(1) Lady Ottoline Ltd (t/a The Lady Ottoline) failed to comply with any of the requirements of section 188 and section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”) and, therefore, the Claimants’ complaints under Section 189 of TULRCA are well-founded(2) The Respondent shall pay each Claimant listed below a protective award equivalent to 90 days’ pay, with a commencement date of 29 June 2017. - 1 -REASONS
[1]I am satisfied that the complaints are made out.[2]The Tribunal has taken the following into account when deciding this case: 2.1. Witness statement of Stefanie Marechal signed and dated 18 February 2018; 2.2. Witness statement of Jakub Valenta signed and dated 16 February 2018; 2.3. Witness statement of Benjamin De Vos signed and dated 16 February 2018; 2.4. Witness statement of Hannah Bonnell dated 5 November 2024, together with payroll data produced by her relating to June 2017 which showed that there were 20 employees in the Lady Ottoline pub at that time. Ms Bonnell attended the video hearing before me to give oral evidence; 2.5. The Companies House website which shows that the Lady Ottoline Ltd (t/a The Lady Ottoline), commenced winding up on 1 February 2018 and was dissolved on 18 May 2023.[3]Based on the above and having heard representations from Counsel for the Claimants I am satisfied that there were 20 employees at this establishment, which was a single establishment, namely The Lady Ottoline (a public house) trading at 11A Northington St, London WC1N 2JF including the Claimants named below.[4]Each of these employees was dismissed for redundancy on 29 June 2017, without any arrangements for the election of employee representatives nor any consultation. None of the information required by section 188(4) TULRCA was provided.[5]Given the total absence of any consultation and having had regard to the principles set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Susie Radin v GMB [1994] ICR 893, I find that there are no mitigating circumstances and in the circumstances the appropriate award for all Claimants is 90 days’ pay which is the maximum amount under section 189(4) TULRCA.[6]The Schedule attached contains the names of the relevant Claimants. Employment Judge Adkin - 2 - Date 5 November 2024 13 November 2024 ..................................................................................... ...................................................................................... - 3 - SCHEDULE OF CLAIMANTS’ NAMES 2207367/2017 Ms Hailey Elkington 2207368/2017 Mr Jakub Valenta 2207369/2017 Mr Kevin Lowdermilk 2207370/2017 Ms Hannah Bonnell 2207371/2017 Mr Mario Pere Reynes 2207372/2017 Mr Tom Haste 2207373/2017 Mr Benjamin De Vos 2207374/2017 Ms Barbara Usai 2207375/2017 Ms Francesca Lanzafame 2207376/2017 Ms Stephanie Marechal 2207377/2017 Ms Fabrizia Bevilacqua - 4 - CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 Under the provisions of Rule 67 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the Judgment dated 5 November 2024 sent to the parties on 13 November 2024, are corrected by addition of “Lady Ottoline Ltd (t/a The Lady Ottoline) (dissolved)” under the heading Respondents. Employment Judge Adkin Date 14.1.25 15 January 2025 ..................................................................................... ...................................................................................... Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing. 10.15 Certificate of Correction – rule 69 March 2017