Employer Fails in Redundancy Process, Entitling Workers to Protective Award
📌 In brief
The Employment Judge ruled that an employer must ensure appropriate employee representatives are in place when proposing to dismiss 20 or more workers as redundant within 90 days. The judge found the employer breached its legal duties and awarded the claimant a protective award of 90 days' pay.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must ensure that appropriate representatives are elected for the purposes of information and consultation when proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant within 90 days.
📖 What the law says
An employer must make fair arrangements for the election of employee representatives, ensuring that the number of representatives is adequate, that they represent all affected employees, and that the election process is transparent and fair. Affected employees must be allowed to vote and run for these positions without unreasonable restrictions.
When an employer plans to dismiss 20 or more employees due to redundancy within 90 days, they must consult with appropriate employee representatives chosen through a fair election process. Consultations must start early and last at least 30 days, with the aim of discussing ways to avoid or reduce the number of dismissals and mitigate their effects.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was entitled to bring a redundancy claim as there were no employee representatives for information and consultation.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge ruled that the employer breached its obligations under sections 188A and 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by failing to ensure appropriate representatives were elected for information and consultation during a redundancy process involving more than 20 employees.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Numbers: 4104136/2025 and others
Hearing held by video in Glasgow on 27 April 2026
Employment Judge M [NAME] & Others
Claimants
Represented by:
[COUNSEL]
(Counsel)
[RESPONDENT] (in [NAME])
Respondent Did not attend
Secretary of State for Business, [NAME] not attend
JUDGMENT (1) The claimants are entitled to bring this claim because they were employees of the respondent dismissed as redundant in circumstances where there was no recognised trade union and there were neither existing employee representatives, nor any elected for the purposes of information and consultation. (2) The respondent entered [NAME] on 27 August 2025. The administrators gave consent for these claims to continue on 26 November 2025. However, no response was filed and the claims are not defended. (3) The respondent proposed to (and did) dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at the same establishment on 27 August 2025 (a period of 90 or fewer days). There were no appropriate representatives of affected employees for the purposes of information and consultation about that proposal and the
Case Number: 4104136/2026 Page 2 respondent failed to ensure that any were elected. The respondent was therefore in breach of its obligations under sections 188A and 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. (4) The claimants are entitled to a protective award of 90 days’ pay. The first day of that protected period was 28 August 2025. (5) Summary oral reasons were given in the presence of those attending the hearing.
Employment Judge: [NAME] of Judgment: 27 April 2026 Entered in register: 30 April 2026 and copied to parties
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails in Consultation, Awarded Protective Payment
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Redundancy Consultation
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Fa…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Wrongful Dismissal Due to Unpaid Notice Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Compensation to Employees
- Employment Tribunal Veterinary Surgeon Wins Constructive Dismissal Case at 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 accepted
- The employer must ensure appropriate representatives are elected for information and consultation when proposing redundancies.
- The employer must pay notice period wages if they terminate an employee without providing the required notice.
- An employer must consult adequately when making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days, failing which the claimant is entitled to protection.
- An employer must comply with collective consultation requirements set out in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when proposing redundancies involving 20 or more employees.
- An employer must consult employee representatives in accordance with section 188 when dismissing more than 20 employees within 90 days.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court decided that the employer must ensure appropriate representatives are elected for information and consultation when proposing to dismiss more than 20 employees as redundant within 90 days.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) brought a case against their employer (the respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled in favour of the claimant because the employer failed to ensure appropriate representatives were elected for information and consultation during the redundancy process.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 188A and 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to ensure appropriate representatives were elected for information and consultation during the redundancy process was the central issue.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer proposes to dismiss more than 20 employees as redundant within 90 days without appropriate representatives, they may be liable for a protective award.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The court relied on the lack of evidence showing that appropriate representatives were elected during the redundancy process.
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.