Miss S Baker and Others v Hochanda Global Ltd (In administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 3301112/2025 and Others
JUDGMENT
(1) The respondent has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award succeeds.(2) The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the claimants who worked at the respondent’s establishment at Nene House, Nene Valley Business Park, The Old Quarry, Oundle, Peterborough PE8 4HN and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 25 October 2024 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 25 October 2024 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.REASONS
[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at Nene House, Nene Valley Business Park, The Old Quarry, Oundle, Peterborough PE8 4HN (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on 25 October 2024.[2]There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment.[3]20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 25 October 2024.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The last of the dismissals appears to have occurred on 25 October 2024, so all the claims are likely to have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[6]The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response but its administrators have given their consent to the claim for a protective award proceeding. The second respondent has filed a response which invites the tribunal to scrutinise the grounds upon which the claimants seek a protective award but does not claim direct knowledge of events.[7]There appears to be no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so. Approved by: Regional Employment Judge Foxwell Date: 5 August 2025[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at Nene House, Nene Valley Business Park, The Old Quarry, Oundle, Peterborough PE8 4HN (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on 25 October 2024.[2]There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment.[3]20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 25 October 2024.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The last of the dismissals appears to have occurred on 25 October 2024, so all the claims are likely to have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[6]The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response but its administrators have given their consent to the claim for a protective award proceeding. The second respondent has filed a response which invites the tribunal to scrutinise the grounds upon which the claimants seek a protective award but does not claim direct knowledge of events.[7]There appears to be no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so. Approved by: