Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Compensation to Employees
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal ruled in favour of workers who were dismissed without proper notice or consultation. The judge ordered the employer to pay a protective award, compensating for the lack of compliance with legal obligations during redundancy procedures.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with collective consultation requirements when proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at an establishment.
📖 What the law says
An employer must consult with appropriate representatives if they plan to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days. Consultation must start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal if fewer than 100 employees 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 set out in section 188, a complaint can be made to an employment tribunal by affected employees or their representatives. If the complaint is found well-founded, the tribunal can declare it so and may order a protective award, requiring the employer to pay remuneration for up to 180 days.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant succeeded in their claims for a protective award under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge granted a protective award under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to employees after finding that their employer failed to comply with collective consultation requirements before dismissing them as redundant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Number:1308610/2022 & others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
Respondents: [redacted] (2) [COMPANY] (in compulsory liquidation) (3) [COMPANY] (in compulsory liquidation) (4) Interested Party:Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Heard at:
Newcastle Employment Tribunal
On:
04 February 2026
Before:
Employment Judge Sweeney
Appearances For the Claimants: [redacted] For the Respondents: [redacted] For the Interested Party: No attendance or representation
JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND REMEDY
1. The claims by the Claimants listed in the attached ‘Master Schedule’ against the Respondents listed in that schedule under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (‘the Act’) for failure to comply with section 188 and section 188A of the Act are well-founded and succeed.
2. The Tribunal makes a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in favour of the Claimants listed in the Schedule attached (“Schedule 1”) against the Respondents listed in that schedule.
3. The protected period begins on 13 June 2022. The Respondents are ordered to pay remuneration to the Claimants in the Master Schedule for the protected period which:
a. 85 days in respect of those employees identified on the schedule as
2
being employed by ‘[COMPANY] and ‘[COMPANY].
b. 75 days in respect of those employees identified on the schedule as being employed by ‘[COMPANY].
4. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’) apply to the protective award.
REASONS
1. By individual claim forms presented on various dates, the Claimants brought claims for a protective award under s.188 and s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (‘Protective Award’) in respect of breach of the collective consultation requirements.
2. As the [NAME] were in administration, all claims were stayed by the Employment Tribunal, pending the Claimants obtaining permission to proceed with their claims from the High Court.
3. By various orders, over time, the High Court granted the Claimants permission to proceed with their claims in the Employment Tribunal.
4. [NAME] were appointed on 3rd February 2023. A protective draft response was put in on 14th February 2023, along with an application to extend time.
5. In other cases, the ‘[NAME]’, on 17th March 2023, [NAME] wrote to the Tribunal attaching an amended Response. In that [NAME] conceded liability in respect of the claims but reserved the right to make submissions in respect of the length of the protected period.
6. [NAME]’ concessions in those other cases, and the strike out of the responses in these cases, are enough in themselves for a default judgment to be given in this case. However, as the Secretary of State is an interested party, the Tribunal has nonetheless gone on to consider whether the Claimants have established their claims for a protected award.
3
7. I am satisfied that:
7.1. With the exception of the claimants identified in paragraph 8 and the employees identified in paragraph 9 below, each of the Claimants in column B/C of the Master Schedule was employed by the particular Respondent identified in column E of that schedule at the branch/site identified in column F.
7.2. the [NAME] employed over 20 employees at each branch/site.
7.3. the [NAME] proposed to and/or dismissed as redundant 20 or more employees at the site / establishment identified in column F.
7.4. That there were no appropriate representatives within the meaning of section 188(1B)(a) or (b) at any of the sites.
7.5. That the [NAME] each failed to comply with its statutory obligations under section 188A of the Act (relating to the election of appropriate representatives).
7.6. That the [NAME] each failed to comply with its statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 of the Act at the establishments in respect of the workforce employed there.
8. The claimants referred to in paragraph 7.1 above are those whose claims have been struck out, namely: 8.1. [NAME] [1309533/2022] - Row 1 of the Master Schedule
8.2. [NAME] [1308610] - Row 3 of the Master Schedule
8.3. [NAME] [1309547/2022] - Row 13 of the Master Schedule
8.4. [NAME] [1309432/2022] - Row 49 of the Master Schedule
8.5. [NAME] [1309443/2022] - Row 57 of the Master Schedule:
8.6. [NAME] [1309441] - Row 64 of the Master Schedule
4
8.7. [NAME] [1309444/2022] - Row 67 of the Master Schedule
8.8. [NAME] [1309460/2022] - Row 111 of the Master Schedule
8.9. [NAME] [1309531/2022] - Row 114 of the Master Schedule
9. The employees referred to in paragraph 7.1 above are:
9.1. [NAME] 110 of the Master Schedule.
9.2. [NAME] 139 of the Master Schedule
10. I make a protective award in favour of the remaining Claimants identified on the Master Schedule on the same terms as those claimants in the ‘[NAME]’ (2408605/2022 & others), as regards their respective employers.
11. That is, in respect of
11.1. Employees of [COMPANY]: 85 days 11.2. Employees of [COMPANY]: 85 days 11.3. Employees of [COMPANY]: 75 days
_____________________________
Employment Judge Sweeney
Date: 04 February 2026
5
MASTER SENT TO PARTIES WITH JUDGMENT BUT NOT ATTACHED HERETO
Employment Tribunal Case Number Claimant - [NAME] Respondent (in Liquidation) 1309539/2022 [RESPONDENT]. 1309536/2022 [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309532/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309534/2022 [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309553/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309543/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309554/2022 [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309542/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309557/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309548/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309552/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309551/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309555/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1309556/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309540/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309550/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309541/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309544/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309558/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309461/2022 [COMPANY]
6
1600812/2022 [NAME] [NAME] [COMPANY]. 1600814/2022 [COMPANY]. 1600815/2022 [COMPANY]. 1600817/2022 [COMPANY]. 1600822/2022 [COMPANY]. 1600825/2022 [COMPANY]. 1309535/2022 [COMPANY] 1309549/2022 [COMPANY] 1309525/2022 [COMPANY] 1309521/2022 [COMPANY] 1309513/2022 [COMPANY] 1309524/2022 [COMPANY] 1309517/2022 [COMPANY] 1309516/2022 [COMPANY] 1309559/2022 [COMPANY] 1309528/2022 [COMPANY] 1309522/2022 [COMPANY] 1309530/2022 [COMPANY] 1309526/2022 [COMPANY] 1309429/2022 [COMPANY] 1309449/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309446/2022 [COMPANY]
7
1309430/2022 [COMPANY] 1309456/2022 [COMPANY] 1309457/2022 [COMPANY] 1309433/2022 [COMPANY] 1309463/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309447/2022 [COMPANY] 1309439/2022 [COMPANY] 1309452/2022 [COMPANY] 1309451/2022 [COMPANY] 1309458/2022 [NAME] 1309445/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309459/2022 [COMPANY] 1309431/2022 [COMPANY] 1309450/2022 [NAME] 1309453/2022 [COMPANY] 1309492/2022 [COMPANY] 1309467/2022 [COMPANY] 1309477/2022 [COMPANY] 1309473/2022 [COMPANY] 1309489/2022 [COMPANY] 1309482/2022 [COMPANY] 1309483/2022 [COMPANY]
8
1309480/2022 [COMPANY] 1309470/2022 [COMPANY] 1309468/2022 [COMPANY] 1309475/2022 [COMPANY] 1309478/2022 [COMPANY] 1309486/2022 [COMPANY] 1309471/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309496/2022 [COMPANY] 1309490/2022 [COMPANY] 1309488/2022 [COMPANY] 1309474/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309497/2022 [COMPANY] 1309479/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309469/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 1309476/2022 [COMPANY] 1309485/2022 [COMPANY] 1309464/2022 [NAME] 1309465/2022 [NAME] 1309472/2022 [COMPANY] 1309484/2022 [COMPANY] 1309481/2022 [COMPANY] 1309494/2022 [COMPANY]
9
1309466/2022 [NAME] [COMPANY] 2502620/2023 [COMPANY] 1309499/2022 [COMPANY] 1309505/2022 [NAME] [NAME] 1309504/2022 [COMPANY] 1309501/2022 [NAME] [NAME] 1309510/2022 [COMPANY] 1309509/2022 [COMPANY] 1309508/2022 [COMPANY] 1309507/2022 [NAME] 1309538/2022 [COMPANY] 1309503/2022 [COMPANY] 1309500/2022 [NAME] 1309434/2022 [COMPANY]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requir…
- Employment Tribunal Employee Status Determined by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Wrongful Dismissal Due to Unpaid Notice Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay: Claimant Wins in Employment T…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Unauthorised Wage Deductions Invalid
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Pay Unlawful Wages Deduction
- Employment Tribunal Claimant awarded outstanding redundancy payment and notice pay damages
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Claimants Redundancy Payments and Damages
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 comply with collective consultation requirements before proposing redundancies.
- The employer failed to provide proper notice or redundancy payments.
- The employer made unauthorised deductions from wages or failed to pay holiday entitlements.
- The employer did not adhere to statutory obligations regarding trade union rights and contractual duties.
- The employer was unable to justify any unlawful wage deductions.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants and granted them a protective award.
Who was involved?
Workers who were dismissed as redundant by their employer without proper notice or consultation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The judge found that the employer failed to comply with collective consultation requirements before dismissing employees as redundant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.188 and s.189, Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to consult with employees before dismissing them as redundant violated their legal rights under collective consultation requirements.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the claimants, as they succeeded in obtaining a protective award.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Employees facing redundancy without proper notice and consultation may be entitled to a protective award if their employer fails to comply with legal requirements.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The claimants presented individual claim forms and the liquidators conceded liability, which were key in establishing the case.
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 cases involving employment disputes and protective awards.