Mr R Sturman v IWL Realisations 2023 Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 3311176/2023
JUDGMENT
The administrators of the first respondent have consented to this claim proceeding. The first respondent has not presented a response. The second respondent was notified of the claim under rule 95 and has presented a response. On the information before the judge, the judgment is that:[1]The claimant’s complaint against the respondent of a failure to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 Act (‘the Act’) is well-founded.[2]The tribunal orders the respondent by way of a protective award under section 189(3) of the Act to pay to the claimant a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 6 July 2023. This judgment applies to the claimant only.[3]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.REASONS
[1]The claimant presented his claim on 26 September 2023, after early conciliation and within the statutory time limit.[2]The claimant was employed at Ideal Home House, Newark Road, Peterborough PE1 5WG (‘the establishment’) and was made redundant on 6 July 2023. 20 or more employees at that establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 6 July 2023.[3]There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representative in place. The claimant has standing to bring a claim for a protective award. Page 1 of 2 Case Number: 3311176/2023[4]The claimant was dismissed without any consultation having taken place. This was in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 Act (‘the Act’).[5]The respondent, which is in administration, has not presented a response, but its administrators have given consent to this claim proceeding. The Secretary of State was notified under rule 95. It has presented a response to assist the tribunal but has no direct knowledge of events. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to convene a hearing.[6]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 not just to do so. Approved by: