Ms V Mercer and Ms P Rostron v Herbert T Forrest Ltd (in Administration) and Engie Regeneration Ltd: 2402228/2019 and 2402237/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]Apart from the claims seeking a protective award, all proceedings are dismissed against the first respondent following a withdrawal of the claims by the claimants.[2]Claims for notice pay, unlawful deduction from wages, and seeking a protective award are dismissed against the second respondent following a withdrawal of the claims by the claimants. The claims remaining against the second respondent are for unfair dismissal, a failure to inform and consult about a relevant transfer, and (Mrs Rostron only) breach of contract.[1]The complaints seeking a protective award from the first respondent are well founded. It is declared that the first respondent failed to consult each of the claimants as required by section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent is ordered to pay each claimant remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 December 2018. The recoupment regulations apply.[2]All remaining claims against the second respondent are dismissed following a withdrawal of the claims by the claimants.