Claimants' Protective Award Claims Dismissed in Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
Workers from Bawtry Carbon Limited sought protective awards but were unsuccessful as an existing award had been granted to Unite the Union on their behalf.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant's entitlement to a protective award is satisfied if another union has received such an award on their behalf.
📖 Technical summary
The claimants' applications for protective awards were dismissed as they are covered by a separate award made to Unite the Union.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimants, who were workers at Bawtry Carbon Limited (in administration), applied for protective awards. The Employment Judge dismissed their applications, finding that they are covered by a separate award made to Unite the Union.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case No: 1801048/2025 and others (See attached schedule)
10.2 Judgment - rule 61
March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
Respondents: [redacted]
(2) Secretary of State for Business & [NAME]
JUDGMENT
1. The claimants’ applications, as individual claimants, for a protective award are hereby dismissed, the claimants being covered, in terms of entitlement to a protective award, by a separate award made in favour of Unite the Union.
Employment Judge Maidment
Date 14 May 2026
Case No: 1801048/2025 and others (See attached schedule)
10.2 Judgment - rule 61
March 2017
Schedule of Claims
Case Number Claimant Name 1801048/2025 Mr [APPELLANT] 1801046/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801050/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801052/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801054/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801055/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801056/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801058/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801059/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801060/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801061/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801062/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801064/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801065/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801066/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801067/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801068/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801069/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801070/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801071/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801072/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801073/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801074/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801075/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801076/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801077/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801078/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801079/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801080/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801081/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801082/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801083/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801084/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801085/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801086/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801087/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801088/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801089/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801090/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801091/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801093/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801094/2025 Mr [NAME] 1801291/2025 [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unpaid Wages Claim Dismissed by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair and Wrongful Dismissal Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Disability and Age Discrimination Claims
- Employment Tribunal Late Claims for Redundancy and Notice Payments Rejected by Employment Tribu…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claim Due to Lack of Early Conciliation Certi…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy and Wage Claims
- Employment Tribunal Tribunal Rejects Discrimination Complaints Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Late Pay Complaints
- Employment Tribunal Unpaid Wages Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Disability Discrimination Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Claimant did not meet statutory definition of employment status.
- Complaints were presented outside the relevant time limit without just and equitable reasons for extension.
- No early conciliation certificate was obtained before presenting the claim form.
- No evidence or attendance at hearing.
- Employer provided proper notice of redundancy but no legal consequences faced.
- Disability discrimination claim dismissed due to being out of time with no grounds for extending time limit.
- Legal requirements not met for redundancy payment or holiday pay.
- Discrimination complaints under Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 were not raised at appropriate time.
- Claims for direct disability, age discrimination and victimisation were unfounded.
- Employer had no legal obligation to pay wages based on unsupported claims.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimants' applications for a protective award were dismissed.
Who was involved?
Workers from Bawtry Carbon Limited and the Secretary of State for Business & Trade.
How did the court decide, and why?
The judge ruled that the workers are covered by an existing union award.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimants' entitlement to a protective award was satisfied through another union's award.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the workers bringing the claims.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If another union has received an award on behalf of employees, individual protective awards may not be granted.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment did not specify any particular evidence or documents.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can typically be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.