Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer must pay a protective award to workers who were dismissed as redundant without proper consultation. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal requirements during redundancy processes.
⚖️ Legal holding
Protective awards are granted when an employer fails to comply with consultation requirements under the Employment Tribunals Act.
📖 What the law says
An employer must consult with appropriate representatives if they plan to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant within 90 days. Consultation should start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal, and must cover ways to avoid or reduce the number of dismissals and mitigate their consequences.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The employment tribunal granted a protective award to claimants who were dismissed without proper consultation, as required by the relevant Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal awarded a protective award to claimants who were dismissed as redundant without consultation at an establishment where over 20 employees faced redundancy within 90 days. The employer failed to comply with the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 188.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 3303534/2025 – 3303564/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
(see attached schedule)
Respondent: [redacted]
2. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
JUDGMENT
(1) The first respondent has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the [NAME] (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award succeeds.
(2) The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the claimants who worked at the first respondent’s [NAME] at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 24 February 2025 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 24 February 2025 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
REASONS
1. The claimants were employed at the same [NAME] at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the [NAME]”) and were made redundant on or after 24 February 2025.
2. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the [NAME].
3. 20 or more employees at the [NAME] were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 24 February 2025.
4. The claimants were dismissed during this period without any consultation having taken place.
5. The last of the dismissals occurred on 24 February 2025, so all the claims have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the [NAME] (Consolidation) Act 1992.
6. The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response to the claim but its administrators have consented to the claim for a protective award proceeding. The [NAME] respondent has been copied into the proceedings as statutory guarantor.
7. There is no reason to depart from the principle that protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so.
Approved by:
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
Date 9 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
....................30/04/2026...............................
.....................................................................
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
MULTIPLE SCHEDULE
Case Number Claimant Name 3303534/2025 [NAME] [APPELLANT] 3303535/2025 Mr [APPELLANT] 3303536/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303537/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303538/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303539/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303540/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303541/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303542/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303543/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303544/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303545/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303546/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303547/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303548/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303549/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303550/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303551/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3303552/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303553/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303554/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303555/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303556/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303557/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303558/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303559/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303560/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303561/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303562/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303563/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303564/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME]: 3303534/2025 – 3303564/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
(see attached schedule)
Respondent: [redacted]
2. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
JUDGMENT
REASONS
Approved by:
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
Date 9 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
MULTIPLE SCHEDULE
Case Number Claimant Name 3303534/2025 [NAME] [APPELLANT] 3303535/2025 Mr [APPELLANT] 3303536/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303537/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3303538/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303539/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303540/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303541/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303542/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303543/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303544/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303545/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303546/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303547/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303548/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303549/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303550/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303551/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303552/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303553/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303554/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303555/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303556/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303557/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303558/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303559/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303560/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303561/2025 Ms [NAME] 3303562/2025 Mr [NAME] 3303563/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 3303564/2025 Ms [NAME] [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Fa…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Failed to Consult Properly Before Redundancies: Claimants Win Prot…
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Case Against Employer Over Wages, Holiday Pay and Dismissal
- Employment Tribunal Claimant wins breach of contract case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Wins Compensation for Unpaid Wages and Holidays
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Claimant: Damages Awarded for Unpaid…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Pay Unpaid Wages and Notice Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer for Wage Deduc…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
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 did not provide adequate consultation before making redundancies.
- The employer failed to comply with the statutory requirements regarding collective consultation for large-scale redundancies.
- The employer breached the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by not consulting properly when making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It decided that the employer failed to comply with legal requirements for redundancy consultations and must pay a protective award.
Who was involved?
The case involved workers who were dismissed as redundant without proper consultation from their employer.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled in favour of the claimants because the employer failed to consult with employees before making redundancies involving over 20 people within a short period.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 188 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to consult with employees before making redundancies involving over 20 people within a short period was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimants.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer fails to consult properly during redundancy processes, employees may be entitled to a protective award.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing that over 20 employees were made redundant without consultation was key.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.