Mr J Cleworth v Nationwide Crash Repair Centres Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy: 2415774/2020
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 at an establishment located at Waggon Road, Mossley, Tameside.[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 and other employees in accordance with the provisions of s.188 and s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”).[4]The claimant, along with other employees, has raised a complaint 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 of the claimants, 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]However, I have given Judgment on protective award claims in respect of various establishments where I could be satisfied from information provided by the claimants that more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant. In those cases, I have given Judgment for those claimants which were listed in the proposed consent order and those claimants which were not. I considered it appropriate to do so as the terms of the Judgment provide for a protective award for the maximum period, and because the Administrators and the Secretary of State have both indicated that they will not be actively resisting the claim.[9]Mr Cleworth has provided information confirming that at least 20 redundancies were proposed in respect of the Waggon Road site. Although his name was not included in the proposed consent order, I am satisfied that it should succeed and have issued this Judgment accordingly.[10]If any party considers that this Judgment should not have been issued in favour of Mr Cleworth, 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.