Miss V Alexander and others v Lesko Park and Leisure Homes Ltd (in Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: 3310245/2023 and others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3310245/2023
Miss V Alexander & OthersClaimant1. Lesko Park and Leisure Homes Limited (in Administration) 2. Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial StrategyRespondent
Date 2 April 2024

JUDGMENT

[1]The First 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 Lesko Developments Ltd Unit 1, The Links, Peterborough, PE2 6BJ and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 4 May 2023 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 4 May 2023 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.

REASONS

[1]There are 33 claimants.[2]The Claimants appear to have presented their claims within the statutory time limit.[3]It appears that the Claimants were employed at the same establishment at Lesko Developments Ltd Unit 1, The Links, Peterborough, PE2 6BJ and were made redundant on or after 4 May 2023.[4]The Claimants assert that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives.[5]It appears that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 4 May 2023.[6]The Claimants claim that they were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.[7]The First Respondent has not filed a response. The Second Respondent has filed a response but states that it has only ticked yes (at 6.1 of the ET3) to facilitate submission of the ET3 and that the Secretary of State is joined as an interested party in his role as statutory guarantor, and neither supports nor resists the claims. In these circumstances it would be disproportionate to convene a hearing.[8]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.