Mr A Mersh and Others v Architectural Glass and Aluminium Ltd (in administration): 2501710/2024 and Others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2501710/2024
Between
Mr A Mersh and othersClaimantArchitectural Glass and Aluminium Limited (in administration)RespondentDate 25 March 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim was presented in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 27 July 2024. The respondent has failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge has decided that a determination can properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.[2]The claimant’s complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 (‘the 1992 Act’) of a failure by the respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act are well founded.[3]The Tribunal orders the respondent by way of a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act to pay to the claimants a payment equivalent to renumeration for the period of 90 days beginning on 5 April 2024 to employees of the respondent who were employed at the Unit 2, Jade Business Park, Spring Road, Murton, County Durham, SR7 9DR and who were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 5 April 2024.
REASONS
[1]The claimants made a compliant under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on the ground that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the 1992 Act in respect of their dismissals.[2]The respondent has not presented a response to the claims.[3]The respondent’s administrators have given consent for the claims to continue.[4]I have decided that a determination can be properly made of that complaint on the available material. I am satisfied of the following:a. As at 5 April 2024, the respondent was proposing to dismiss as redundant, within a period of 90 das or less, 20 or more employees who were assigned to carry out their duties at the respondent’s site at Unit 2, Jade Business Park, Spring Road, Murton, County Durham, SR7 9DR (‘the site’);b. The claimants were employees of the respondent who may be affected by the proposed dismissals. They were assigned to carry out their duties at the site;c. For the purposes of section 188 of the 1992 Act, the respondent’s site was either an establishment in itself or it was part of a unit constituting an establishment;d. The respondent was required to consult about the dismissals all the person who were appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals: s.188;e. The claimants were not employees of a description in respect of which an independent trade union was recognized by the respondent;f. There were not employee representatives elected by the affected employees, for the purposes of section 188 in an election satisfying the requirements of section 188A(1). The respondent did not invite the affected employees to elect such representatives;g. The claimants re entitled to make a compliant under s.189 of the 1992 Act on the ground that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s.188;h. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of s.188 in respect of the claimants’ dismissals;i. The respondent has not shown that there were special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with any requirement of s.188;j. Each of the complaints were presented to the Tribunal within the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which the claimants’ dismissals took effect (taking into account section 292A).[5]The claimants’ complaints under s.189 are well founded. I have determined that it is appropriate to make a protective award under s.189.[6]In determining the length of protected period I have had regard to the seriousness of the employer’s default in complying with the requirements of s.188 and borne in mind guidance given in the case of GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 180.[7]I am satisfied on the material available that this is a case where there has been no consultation at all in relation to the proposed dismissals and there are no mitigating circumstances. Therefore, it is just and equitable that the length of the protected period should be a maximum of 90 days. Approved by: Employment Judge Jeram 25 March 2025 Schedule Case Number Claimant Name 2501710/2024 Mr Andrew Mersh 2501711/2024 Mr Andrew Scott 2501712/2024 Mr Andrew Naisbett 2501713/2024 Mr Ben Rose 2501714/2024 Mr Cavan McDonnell Mr Christopher 2501715/2024 Thompson 2501716/2024 Mr Daniel Thompson 2501717/2024 Mr Daniel Kinnair 2501718/2024 Mr Darren Naisbett 2501719/2024 Ms Donna Hill 2501720/2024 Mr Ethan Gilley 2501721/2024 Mr Greg Wyness 2501722/2024 Mr Greg Speight 2501723/2024 Mr Jamie Freeman 2501724/2024 Mr Jason Atterbury 2501725/2024 Mr Joshua Tuckwell 2501726/2024 Mr Karl Whittle 2501727/2024 Ms Kimberely Coates 2501728/2024 Mr Luke Sanders 2501729/2024 Mr Mark Green 2501730/2024 Mr Matthew Billingham 2501731/2024 Mr Neil Graham 2501732/2024 Mr Paul Barnaby 2501733/2024 Mr Peter Sweeney 2501734/2024 Mr Peter Barker 2501735/2024 Mr Peter Waddle 2501736/2024 Mr Reece Swaddle 2501737/2024 Mr Sean Cummings 2501738/2024 Mr Stephen Meek 2501739/2024 Mr Steven Ramsey