Ms K Inglis and Others v FCV (In liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business Energy: 4103668/2023 and Others
REASONS
[1]The claimants sought protective awards, in term of section 189 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). The first respondent is in liquidation. The liquidator of the respondent company is Begbies Traynor (Central) LLP.[2]The claimants required the consent of the Court before proceeding with their claims for protective awards. They applied to the Sheriff Court in Aberdeen on 10 May 2024. The Sheriff granted leave bringing proceedings against FCV Ltd (In Liquidation).[3]The second respondents lodged an ET3 Form. They indicated that the position of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, although joined in S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 5 the proceedings as an interested party, was neutral not being aware of the circumstances surrounding the consultation with the employees.[4]The case proceeded to a Hearing on 21 August 2024. Mr Bolling 5 representing the claimants led evidence from Ms Katarzyna Urbaniak. Ms Urbaniak was the Office Manager in the respondent company although she was on maternity leave at the point at which the company went into liquidation. She had been contacted by friends in the office and told that there was an urgent meeting on 16 March 2023 at which, she was advised later 10 that day, liquidators indicated the business would immediately cease trading and that the employees, totalling 23 employees at that point, were to be made redundant.[5]She confirmed there was no recognised trade union in the workplace or any 15 existing representative bodies with the appropriate authority to consult the employer on behalf of the employees. She indicated that there had been no discussions with employees, including herself in relation to possible redundancies. 20 6. She explained the structure of the company was that the Head Office at which she worked was based in Aberdeen and it was a cleaning company employing the claimants, whose names she recognised, as employees throughout the city. They were accordingly employed at the same establishment. Discussion & Decision[7]I considered the claims made under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for a Protective Award. It was clear that there was no consultation 30 with any of the claimants as required by the Act. Each of the claimants was dismissed because of redundancy such terminations taking immediate effect. The company went into liquidation. Special circumstances S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 6[8]There was no evidence before me of any special circumstances that might justify or mitigate the decision. Employment Judge: J M Hendry Date of Judgment: 23 August 2024[10]Date Sent to Parties: 23 August 2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Numbers: 4103668/2023 & 23 Others Claimants: Ms K Inglis & 23 Others Respondent: 1. FCV (In Liquidation) C/O: Begbies Traynor (Central) Llp 2. Secretary of State for Business Energy Industrial Strategy CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 In accordance with the power set out in Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, I hereby correct the clerical mistake(s), error(s)or omissions(s) in the Judgment sent to the parties on 23 August 2024, by adding: Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 36 & 37 “starting from 16/3/2023”. An amended version of the Judgment is attached. Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reconsideration are not changed by this certificate of correction or the amended Judgment or Case Management Order. These time limits still run from the date of the original Judgment or Case Management Order, or if reasons were provided later, from the date that those were sent to you. Employment Judge: J M Hendry Date Signed: 1 October 2024 Date Sent to Parties: 1 October 2024 E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 5 Case Nos: 4103668/2023, 4103669/2023, 4103670/2023, 4103671/2023, 4103672/2023, 4103673/2023, 4103674/2023, 4103675/2023, 4103676/2023, 4103677/2023, 4103678/2023, 4103679/2023, 4103680/2023, 4103681/2023, 4103682/2023, 4103683/2023, 4103684/2023, 4103685/2023, 4103686/2023, 4103687/2023, 4103688/2023, 4103689/2023, 4103690/2023, 4103691/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on 21 August 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members C A Jackson[15]S Larkin Ms K Inglis 1st 20 Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant M Rakoczy 2nd 25 Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant K A Bernas 3rd 30 Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant M Soltysek 4th 35 Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant M Grisnik 5th 40 Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 2 K & A Inglis 6th Claimant 5 Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant A Wojciechowska 7th Claimant 10 Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant J Bolesta 8th Claimant 15 Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant D Zielinska 9th Claimant[20]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant K Siuda-Lukacs 10th Claimant[25]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant K Urbaniak 11th Claimant[30]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant M Figlarska 12th Claimant[35]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant B Zielinska 13th Claimant[40]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant A Vasilache 14th Claimant[45]Represented by, Mr W Bolling, Consultant S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 3 A Petryk 15th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 5 Consultant K Szymanska 16th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 10 Consultant Z Prochun 17th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 15 Consultant M Rzeznik 18th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 20 Consultant K Zlotucha 19th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 25 Consultant B Basniak 20th Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 30 Consultant I Fogarasi 21st Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 35 Consultant E Fogarasi 22nd Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 40 Consultant E Szpojankowski 23rd Claimant Represented by, Mr W Bolling, 45 Consultant S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 4 K Glinski 24th Claimant Represented by, 10 Mr W Bolling, Consultant FCV (In Liquidation) 1st Respondent 15 C/O: Begbies Traynor (Central) Llp No Appearance Secretary of State for Business Energy 2nd 20 Respondent No Appearance[1]That the first respondent, FCV Limited acted in breach of its obligations in terms of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and 35 2. That the first respondent should pay a Protective Award of 90 days remuneration to each claimant in terms of section 192 of the 1992 Act starting from 16/3/2023.[2]The claimants required the consent of the Court before proceeding with their 5 claims for protective awards. They applied to the Sheriff Court in Aberdeen on 10 May 2024. The Sheriff granted leave bringing proceedings against FCV Ltd (In Liquidation).[3]The second respondents lodged an ET3 Form. They indicated that the 10 position of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, although joined in the proceedings as an interested party, was neutral not being aware of the circumstances surrounding the consultation with the employees.[4]The case proceeded to a Hearing on 21 August 2024. Mr Bolling 15 representing the claimants led evidence from Ms Katarzyna Urbaniak. Ms Urbaniak was the Office Manager in the respondent company although she was on maternity leave at the point at which the company went into liquidation. She had been contacted by friends in the office and told that there was an urgent meeting on 16 March 2023 at which, she was advised later 20 that day, liquidators indicated the business would immediately cease trading and that the employees, totalling 23 employees at that point, were to be made redundant.[5]She confirmed there was no recognised trade union in the workplace or any 25 existing representative bodies with the appropriate authority to consult the employer on behalf of the employees. She indicated that there had been no discussions with employees, including herself in relation to possible redundancies. 30 6. She explained the structure of the company was that the Head Office at which she worked was based in Aberdeen and it was a cleaning company employing the claimants, whose names she recognised, as employees throughout the city. They were accordingly employed at the same establishment. S/4103668/2023 & 23 Others Page 6 Discussion & Decision[7]I considered the claims made under section 182 of the Employment Rights 5 Act 1996 for a Protective Award. It was clear that there was no consultation with any of the claimants as required by the Act. Each of the claimants was dismissed because of redundancy such terminations taking immediate effect. The company went into liquidation. Special circumstances[8]There was no evidence before me of any special circumstances that might justify or mitigate the decision.[15]Employment Judge: J M Hendry Date of Judgment: 23 August 2024 Date Sent to Parties: 23 August 2024