Miss A Dyer and others v STA Travel Ltd (a company in creditors’ voluntary liquidation): 3311451/2020 and others
JUDGMENT
The claims for a protective award for failure to carry out collective consultation under the Trade & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in the case numbers set out in the attached schedule are struck out.REASONS
[1]By an order sent to the parties on 14 December 2021 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim for a protective award should not be struck out because• it has no reasonable prospect of success because it appears that the claimant was not assigned to an establishment at which 20 or more employees were employed.[2]The claimants in the attached schedule have failed to make representations in writing, or have failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The claim is therefore struck out. ____________________________________________________ Employment Judge George 1 July 2022 3311463/2020 Mears 3311464/2020 Mircheva[3]3311470/2020 Risk[4]3311485/2020 Musson[5]3311517/2020 Bull[6]3311783/2020 Meads[7]3300998/2021 Brandish[8]3300999/2021 Nichols[9]3301000/2021 Hammond[10]3301001/2021 Wilson[11]3301002/2021 Okupniak[12]3301009/2021 Stanley[13]3301040/2021 Hammond[14]3301046/2021 Nichols[15]3301047/2021 Brandish[16]3301048/2021 Hammond[17]3301049/2021 Wilson[18]3301050/2021 Okupniak[19]3301064/2021 Chandler[20]3301081/2021 Wilson[21]3303386/2021 Okupniak[22]3303387/2021 Nichols[23]3303388/2021 Hammond[24]3303398/2021 Wilson[25]3303390/2021 Brandish Case Numbers: 3311451-2020; 3311463-2020; 3311464-2020; 3311470/2020; 3311485/2020; 3311517/2020; 3311783/2020; 3300998/2021; 3300999/2021; 3301000/2021; 3301001/2021; 3301002/2021; 3301009/21; 3301040/2021; 3301046/2021; 3301047/2021; 3301048/2021; 3301049/2021; 3301050/2021; 3301064/2021; 301081/2021; 3301504/2021; 3303386/2021; 3303387/2021; 3303388/2021; 3303389/2021; 3303390/2021 and 3311542/2021. 6.2 Strike out Judgment – claim - rule 37 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Dyer and ors Respondent: STA Travel Ltd (a company in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)The law
[26]To the extent that it is relevant to the decision, given our conclusion on the primary argument, we think that the fact that the company was able to put this Case Number: 3311451/2020, 3311463/2020, 3311464/2020, 3311470/2020, 3311783/2020 & 3301504/2021 8 in place so quickly supported our conclusion that they were already operating a national unit. However, we do not need to rule on this secondary argument. It does strike us that this was put together under unusual circumstances and it did not reflect how the organisation usually worked.[27]We should make clear that the evidence that we have accepted from Ms Mircheva is that she worked at the Victoria store throughout. It always had more than 20 employees, according to the information that she has provided in her statement. Therefore, regardless of the decision that we have made in respect of Ms Risk, Miss Dyer, Ms Meads and Miss Mears, the claim by Miss Mircheva would have succeeded because of the number allocated to the store at which she worked.[28]Our decision on the first issue is therefore that the respondent did propose to dismiss as redundant 20 more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. Our decision on the second is that the claimants were assigned to that establishment. As to the third issue, it is clear from what we have been told, that the respondent did not comply with their requirement to consult with employees. Therefore that the claims for protected awards are well founded. These are the only claims that remain to be brought by all of these claimants because any other claims that were initially brought had been satisfied by the insurance fund and have been dismissed on withdrawal.[29]We therefore conclude that the remaining claimants, with the exception of Mr Saunders, are entitled to a protective award. There were apparently no attempts to carry out consultation and no mitigating factors have been put forward by the first respondent justifying a reduction of the maximum period of 90 days and the Tribunal has discovered none. Therefore, applying the applicable law, the appropriate award is that the protected period is 90 days.