Mr S Sheldrake and Others v ARJ Construction Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business & Trade: 3306542/2024 and others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3306542/2024, 3306568/2024, 3306467/2024
Mr S Sheldrake & Others (see attached schedule)Claimant1. ARJ Construction Limited (In Administration) 2. Secretary of State for Business & TradeRespondent
Date 2 January 2025

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 Bedford House, Rutherford Close, Meadway Technology Park, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2EF and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 29 April 2024 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 29 April 2024 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

REASONS

[1]The claimants were employed at the same establishment at Bedford House, Rutherford Close, Meadway Technology Park, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2EF (“the establishment”) and were made redundant on or after 29 April 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 29 April 2024.[4]The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[5]The first of the dismissals occurred on 29 April 2024, so all 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 administration, has filed a response and 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.