Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Breach
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal awarded a protective award to the claimant after finding that the employer did not follow the correct procedures when making redundancies involving more than 20 employees. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to collective redundancy laws to avoid financial penalties.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must consult employees according to the relevant labor laws when making redundancies.
📖 What the law says
An employer must consult with appropriate representatives if they plan to dismiss 20 or more employees at one location within 90 days. Consultation must start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal if fewer than 100 employees are involved, and at least 45 days if 100 or more are involved. The consultation should cover ways to avoid or reduce the number of dismissals and mitigate their consequences.
If an employer fails to comply with the consultation requirements under section 188, affected employees can file a complaint to an employment tribunal. If the complaint is well-founded, the tribunal can declare it so and may order the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period, which cannot exceed 180 days.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
An employer's failure to properly consult employees during a closure resulted in a protective award for the claimant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant successfully obtained a protective award from the Employment Tribunal after the employer failed to comply with collective redundancy consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal found that no proper warning or notice was given, nor were employee representatives elected for consultation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Numbers: 2404938/2024 and 2404941/2024
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
Respondents:
[redacted] (2) Secretary of State for Department of Business and Trade
JUDGMENT Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, Rule 22
The first respondent not having presented a response to the claims, and on the information before the Judge,
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant’s complaint under section 189 of the [NAME] (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the 1992 Act) of a failure by the first respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the 1992 Act is well-founded.
2. The Tribunal orders the first respondent by way of protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act to pay to the claimant a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 24 July 2024.
3. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to these awards.
REASONS
1. The claimant claimed a protective award in respect of a breach of the collective consultation requirements under the 1992 Act. No response was presented to the claim by the first respondent.
2. The first respondent is in liquidation, and the [NAME] have not presented a response on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The [NAME] respondent, as an interested party, did not support or resist the claim.
Case Numbers: 2404938/2024 and 2404941/2024
2 4. On a full consideration of the file of proceedings, and having heard evidence from the claimant and the claimant’s colleague Mrs [APPELLANT], it was possible to issue this Judgment under Rule 22 in respect of the claim for a protective award.
5. On the information provided, the Tribunal makes the following findings.
6. The first respondent employed over 20 employees where the claimant was employed. There was no [NAME] recognised for collective bargaining, consultation or negotiation with the workforce at the site.
7. The employees were told on 24 July 2024 that the first respondent was closing down and they were all being made redundant with immediate effect.
8. There was no proper warning or notice given to or consultation with the workforce. No employee representatives had been elected or appointed for any such consultation within Section 188A of the 1992 Act.
9. In these circumstances, the first respondent is in breach of the duty under Section 188 of the 1992 Act and the Tribunal makes an award under Section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 24 July 2024.
10. The first respondent is advised of the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, such that, within 10 days of the decision in these proceedings being promulgated or as soon as is reasonably practicable, the first respondent must comply with the provisions of Regulation 6 of the 1996 Regulations and, in particular, must supply to the Secretary of State the following information in writing:
10.1. the name, address and national insurance number of the claimant; and
10.2. the date of termination of the employment of the claimant.
11. The first respondent will not be required to make any payment under the protective award made until it has received a recoupment notice from the Secretary of State or notification that the Secretary of State does not intend to serve a recoupment notice having regard to the provisions of Regulation 7(2). The Secretary of State must normally serve such recoupment notice or notification on the employer within 21 days of receipt of the required information from the respondent.
Approved by: Employment Judge Ainscough
Date: 9 April 2026
Case Numbers: 2404938/2024 and 2404941/2024
3
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
13 May 2026
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Public access to employment tribunal decisions 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.
Case Numbers: 2404938/2024 and 2404941/2024
4 Claimant: [redacted]
Respondents: [redacted]
2. Secretary of State for Department of Business and Trade
ANNEX TO THE JUDGMENT (PROTECTIVE AWARDS)
Recoupment of Benefits
The following particulars are given pursuant to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, SI 1996 No 2349.
The respondent is under a duty to give the Secretary of State the following information in writing: (a) the name, address and National Insurance number of every employee to whom the protective award relates; and (b) the date of termination (or proposed termination) of the employment of each such employee.
That information shall be given within 10 days, commencing on the day on which the Tribunal announced its judgment at the hearing. If the Tribunal did not announce its judgment at the hearing, the information shall be given within the period of 10 days, commencing on the day on which the relevant judgment was sent to the parties. In any case in which it is not reasonably practicable for the respondent to do so within those times, then the information shall be given as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter.
No part of the remuneration due to an employee under the protective award is payable until either (a) the Secretary of State has served a notice (called a Recoupment Notice) on the respondent to pay the whole or part thereof to the Secretary of State or (b) the Secretary of State has notified the respondent in writing that no such notice is to be served.
This is without prejudice to the right of an employee to present a complaint to an Employment Tribunal of the employer’s failure to pay remuneration under a protective award.
If the Secretary of State has served a Recoupment Notice on the respondent, the sum claimed in the Recoupment Notice in relation to each employee will be whichever is the less of:
(a) the amount (less any tax or social security contributions which fall to be deducted by the employer) accrued due to the employee in respect of so much of the protected period as falls before the date on which the Secretary of State receives from the employer the information referred to above; OR
Case Numbers: 2404938/2024 and 2404941/2024
5
(b) (i) the amount paid by way of or paid as on account of jobseeker’s allowance, income-related employment and support allowance or income support to the employee for any period which coincides with any part of the protected period falling before the date described in (a) above; or
(ii) in the case of an employee entitled to an award of universal credit for any period (“the UC period”) which coincides with any part of the period to which the prescribed element is attributable, any amount paid by way of or on account of universal credit for the UC period that would not have been paid if the person’s earned income for that period was the same as immediately before the period to which the prescribed element is attributable.
The sum claimed in the Recoupment Notice will be payable forthwith to the Secretary of State. The balance of the remuneration under the protective award is then payable to the employee, subject to the deduction of any tax or social security contributions.
A Recoupment Notice must be served within the period of 21 days after the Secretary of State has received from the respondent the above-mentioned information required to be given by the respondent to the Secretary of State or as soon as practicable thereafter.
After paying the balance of the remuneration (less tax and social security contributions) to the employee, the respondent will not be further liable to the employee. However, the sum claimed in a Recoupment Notice is due from the respondent as a debt to the Secretary of State, whatever may have been paid to the employee, and regardless of any dispute between the employee and the Secretary of State as to the amount specified in the Recoupment Notice.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Failed to Consult Properly Before Redundancies: Claimants Win Prot…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Employer Liable for Unauthorised Wage Deductions
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Fa…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requir…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Claimant: Damages Awarded for Unpaid…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer for Wage Deduc…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails in Consultation, Awarded Protective Payment
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
- An employer must comply with statutory requirements regarding wages and holiday pay or face legal consequences.|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 provide proper notice of redundancy under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or face legal consequences including protective awards.|An employer must comply with consultation requirements under the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when making redundancies involving 20 or more employees.|An employer must comply with statutory requirements concerning trade union rights and contractual obligations to avoid liability for damages and protective awards.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant successfully obtained a protective award from the Employment Tribunal after the employer failed to comply with collective redundancy consultation requirements.
Who was involved?
A worker and an employer who had over 20 employees at their site.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court found that the employer breached its duty under section 188 of TULRCA 1992 by failing to consult with or warn the workforce properly before making redundancies.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 188 and Section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as well as the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to properly consult with or warn employees before making redundancies involving more than 20 people.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the claimant, as they successfully obtained a protective award.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer fails to follow proper collective redundancy procedures, employees may be entitled to a protective award from the Employment Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The claimant provided evidence that no consultation had taken place and all employees were made redundant immediately without warning.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions of the Employment Tribunal 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 cases involving employment law matters.
