Mrs A Pearce and others v Walker Bros Electrical Engineers Ltd: 3331623/2018 and others
JUDGMENT
The complaints of arrears of wages under the Wages Act and for a statutory redundancy payment are dismissed upon withdrawal.REASONS
[1]On the 31 May 2018 the respondent dismissed the claimants. The claimants were dismissed without notice and the respondent went into voluntary liquidation. The respondent had employed about 40 people based at its premises in Cowley, Oxfordshire. All of them were dismissed.[2]Mrs A Pearce, the first claimant, was employed as a secretary by the respondent. A few days before the 31 May 2018 she was told that she should prepare the final payroll for the 31 May 2018 and she was instructed not to say anything to any of the other employees.[3]On 31 May 2018 a representative of liquidators informed the claimants that they were being dismissed as redundant with immediate effect. There Case Number: 3331623/2018- 3331647/2018 (J) Page 2 of 3 was no notice. The claimants were given no warnings of pending dismissal. There was no consultation with the employees, any union or employee representatives.[4]Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides that where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, the employer shall consult about the dismissals all the persons who are appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.[5]Where an employer has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188, a complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal on that ground by any of the affected employees or by any of the employees who have been dismissed as redundant. The claimants in this case were all dismissed as redundant. In this case I am satisfied that the claimants were dismissed in circumstances where the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188.[6]If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may also make a protective award.[7]The claimants, who were all employed by the respondent at Bridge View, Watlington Road, Cowley, Oxfordshire, OX4 6NF and dismissed as redundant on 31 May 2018, are entitled to a protective award within the meaning of section 189 (3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[8]The respondent is ordered to pay remuneration to the said employees dismissed on 31 May 2018. The protected period is a period of 90 days beginning on 31 May 2018.[9]I make an award for a period of 90 days because there was a complete failure to carry out any consultation. This was a serious default. There has been no explanation offered by the respondent for why there was a failure to comply with the requirements of section 188. I take into account that the purpose of the protective award is to ensure that consultation takes place, in accordance with the requirements of s.188, by providing a sanction against non-compliance by the employer. I consider that it is just and equitable in the circumstances to make an award of 90 days. List of claimants: Mrs Ann Pearce Mr Jack Bernasconi Mrs Anita Crawford Mr Peter Crerar Mr Christopher Giles Case Number: 3331623/2018- 3331647/2018 (J) Page 3 of 3 Mr Joel Gill Mr Samuel Higgs Mr Gavin Jones Mr Davinder Chahal Mr Samuel Coote Mr Geoffrey Howard Mr Matthew Eley Mr Steven McMahon Mr Kenneth O’Brien Mr Adam Rouse Mr Gavin Wright Mr Joshua Nicholls Mr Thomas Nicholls Mr Neil Butler Mr Andrew Collier Mr Daniel Leggett Mr Michael O’Leary Mr Andrew Tappin Mr David Yeomans Mr Nathan Smith