P Armstrong and others v Crown Doors and Shutters Ltd (in compulsory liquidation): 2502595/2023 and others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2502595/2023
Between
P Armstrong and others (see schedule)ClaimantCrown Doors and Shutters Limited (in compulsory liquidation) Rule 95 party: Secretary of State for Business and TradeRespondentDate 27 August 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims made by the claimants named in the schedule, that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of their dismissals, are well founded.[2]The Tribunal orders the respondent, by way of protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act, to pay to each of the claimants named in the schedule a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 5 September 2023. Recoupment[3]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award. The protected period is the period of 90 days beginning on 5 September 2023.
REASONS
[1]Each of the claimants named in the schedule has made a complaint 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 in respect of his or her dismissal. The Court has given permission for the claims to continue.[2]The respondent has not presented a response to the claims. I have decided that a determination can properly be made of the complaints on the available material.[3]On the available material I am satisfied of the following.a. As at 5 September 2023 the respondent was proposing to dismiss as redundant, within a period of 90 days or less, 20 or more employees who were assigned to carry out their duties at the respondent’s premises at Unit 32 Bentall Business Park, Washington NE37 3JD.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 respondent’s premises identified above. They were dismissed as redundant on 5 September 2023.c. For the purposes of section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the respondent’s premises to which the claimants were assigned constituted an establishment.d. The respondent was required to consult about the dismissals all the persons 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: section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. For the purposes of the consultation, the respondent was required to disclose in writing to the appropriate representatives the information set out at section 188(4) of the Act.e. The claimants were not employees of a description in respect of which an independent trade union was recognised by the respondent.f. There were no employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees otherwise than for the purposes of section 188, who had authority from those employees to receive information and to be consulted about the proposed dismissals on their behalf.g. There were no 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.h. The claimants are entitled to make a complaint 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.i. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 in respect of the claimants’ dismissals.j. 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 section 188.k. Each of the complaints was presented to the tribunal within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the claimant’s dismissal took effect (taking into account section 292A).[4]The claimants’ complaints under s189 are well founded.[5]I have determined that it is appropriate to make a protective award under section 189.[6]In determining the length of the protected period I have had regard to the seriousness of the employer’s default in complying with the requirements of section 188 and borne in mind guidance given in the case of GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 180, [2004] IRLR 400.[7]I am satisfied on the material available that this 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 the maximum of 90 days. Schedule of claimants Case Number Claimant Name 2502595/2023 P Armstrong 2502596/2023 L Bown 2502597/2023 S Cummings 2502598/2023 M Dodds 2502599/2023 S Gaberell 2502600/2023 W Gransbury 2502601/2023 K Hindson 2502602/2023 C Ingleby-parker 2502603/2023 R Jose 2502604/2023 G Mersh 2502605/2023 A Mersh 2502606/2023 C Moore 2502607/2023 K Padgett 2502608/2023 E Robson 2502609/2023 B Rose 2502610/2023 K Smith 2502611/2023 B Stewart 2502612/2023 P Sweeney 2502613/2023 S Turnbull 2502614/2023 C Vaughan 2502615/2023 A Wake 2502616/2023 C Wake 2502617/2023 B Waplington