Ms M Tucker and Others v Tingdene Homes Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 3301772/2024 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3301772/2024, 3301869/2024, 3303021/2024, 3303027/2024, 3301348/2024, 3301349/2024
Ms M Tucker & Others Mr S Iliffe & Others Mr J Bell & OtherClaimant1. Tingdene Homes Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) 2. Secretary of State for Business & TradeRespondent
Date 15 October 2024

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 45-49 Bradfield Road, Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Wellingborough, NN8 4HB and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 5 December 2023 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 5 December 2023 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

REASONS

[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at 45-49 Bradfield Road, Finedon Road Industrial Estate, Wellingborough, NN8 4HB (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on or after 5 December 2023.[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 5 December 2023.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The last of the dismissals occurred on 5 December 2023, so the claims 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 creditors voluntary liquidation, 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 to assist the Tribunal only and has no direct knowledge of events. In these circumstances it would be disproportionate to convene a hearing.[7]There is 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.