Mr N O’Reilly v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy: 2415728/2020
JUDGMENT
This was a determination on papers with no attendance by any party.[1]The Tribunal makes a protective award in favour of the Claimant and orders the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020.[2]There is no order requiring any party to pay or reimburse another party’s costs or fees. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees.[3]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent within its audit function in the north west region. He worked from various sites at different times, but the work that he did related to the region as a whole.[2]On 4 September 2020, the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.[3]The respondents did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with the provisions of s.188 and s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”).[4]The claimant has raised his complaints as an individual (there being no relevant employee representatives) pursuant to section 189 of the Act seeking a protective award.[5]By email dated 14 September 2021 the respondents’ Administrators, with the agreement of some claimants pursuing similar claims, applied for a consent order with the effect of giving all claimants who had been employed by the respondent (and other companies within the group) and who had brought protective award claims and who had consented to the terms proposed a protective award of 90 days.[6]In my judgment it was not appropriate to accede to the terms of the proposed consent order as it appeared that some of the claimants worked in smaller establishments in respect of which it appeared there was unlikely to have been a proposal to make 20 or more employees redundant (see USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675.)[7]The proposed consent order also contained terms as to how the claims will rank in the Administration of the respondent companies which is not a matter which it is appropriate for the Tribunal to purport to rule on.[8]Subsequently, judgments have been issued in respect of certain claims and groups of claims where I have been satisfied that the claimants were assigned to establishments where at least 20 employees faced redundancy.[9]The claimant has provided further information about this role which demonstrates that he was working in a regional role rather than one which was specific to one geographic base. The employment of individuals in such roles was administrated by the respondents’ HR function as a single group, namely, “Head Office and Support Services”. I am satisfied that this is the relevant establishment in respect of Mr O’Reilly. I am satisfied from information provided by other claimants to the Tribunal that this group of employees formed one establishment for the purposes of the Protective Award claims. I am also satisfied that there were more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant within this establishment.[10]In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to treat Mr O’Reilly’s claim in the same manner as other claimants in this category, and to issue a Judgment for a 90-day protective award.[11]If any party considers that Mr O’Reilly is not entitled to a protective award, then they are reminded that they may apply for a reconsideration of the Judgment. Further information is contained in the leaflet provided alongside the Judgment.