Unite the Union v Havelock International Ltd (in Administration): 4112091/2019
JUDGMENT
OF THE EMPLOYMENT Judgment issued in Glasgow on 8 July 2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Employment Judge M Kearns Case No: 4112091/2019 TRIBUNAL Respondent Claimant 35 25 15[2]Section 1 89 states so far as material: 1 . Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 Applicable Law Case No: 4112091/2019 ("TULRCA”) provides (so far as relevant):- the employees who have been dismissed as redundant. (d) in any other case, by any of the affected employees, or by any of by the trade union, and (c) in the case of a failure relating to representatives of a trade union, related; representatives, (b) employees who have been dismissed as redundant; representatives,(a) in the case of a failure relating to the election of employee tribunal on that ground - s.188 or S.188A, a complaint may be presented to an employment (1) Where an employer has failed to comply with a requirement Complaint ... and protective award before the first of the dismissals takes effect. 1(b) otherwise, at least 30 days, employees as mentioned in subsection (1), at least 90 days, and (a) where (1A) The consultation shall begin in good time and in any event - measures taken in connection with those dismissals. may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by who are appropriate less, the employer shall consult about the dismissals all the persons more employees at one establishment (1) Where an employer Is proposing to dismiss as redundant Duty of employer to consult ... representatives in the the employer case by any of the representatives by any of the affected employees or by any of the of representatives REASONS any is proposing other failure of any of the employees within a period of 90 days or to dismiss relating to whom the failure to 100 or more employee 20 or who of 30 25 20 15[4]Where the failure by an employer to comply with section 1 88 is a failure relating 3. The Case No: 4112091/2019 favour of the union. category cannot bring individual claims, but can instead rely on the Judgment in recognised section 1 89(1 )(c) on behalf of all employees in respect of whom the union is to representatives in respect of whom they are recognised extends to all hourly paid employees. respondent claimant but shall not exceed 90 days ... ' the employer's default in complying with any requirement of s. 188; equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the seriousness (b) is of such length as the tribunal determines whichever is the earlier, and the complaint(a) begins with the date on which the first of the dismissals to which (4) The protected period - ordering the employer to pay remuneration for the protected period. has failed to comply with a requirement of s. 188,(b) in respect of whose dismissal or proposed dismissal the employer to dismiss as redundant, and (a) who have been dismissed as redundant, or whom it is proposed descriptions of employees - (3) A protective declaration to that effect and may also make a protective award. (2) If the tribunal finds the complaint well-founded satisfied. employer (1B) On a complaint (whether they were union members or not). Employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. The category of workers is an independent of a trade union, title to sue is conferred on the union under to show that the requirements relates award is an award in respect of one or more under subsection takes trade union formally effect, or the date (1)(a) it shall be for the in S.188A have recognised to be just and it shall make a of the in that by the award, been of 25 20[6]On 31 July 2019 the claimant was informed that the respondent had ceased 5. On 31 July 2019 Zelf Hussain Case No: 4112091/2019 a consent order for that period. the protected period is 8 weeks from 31 July 201 9. The parties have applied for respect of that failure. The claim is well founded. The parties are agreed that a complaint pursuant to section 189 of the Act seeking a protective award in Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant has raised representatives consultation. information or warning had been given to the claimant and there was no prior dismissed reason of redundancy trading have consented to these proceedings. appointed Practitioners, of PWC LLP, 7 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2RT were due to financial by the respondent Joint Administrators The respondent did not inform and consult with the appropriate in accordance with the provisions of section 188 of the Trade with immediate effect. More than 20 employees difficulties 09 February 2021 08 July 2020 M Kearns on 31 July 2019. Prior to 31 July 2019 no to the respondent. and David Robert Baxendale, and the employees The Joint Administrators were dismissed Insolvency were by