Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Payments for Non-Compliant Dismissals
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer did not follow proper procedures before dismissing workers. As a result, each worker received a payment equivalent to three months' pay as compensation under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when dismissing employees.
📖 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. Consultations should start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal if fewer than 100 employees are involved, or at least 45 days if 100 or more are involved. The consultation must cover ways to avoid or reduce the number of dismissals and mitigate their effects.
If an employer fails to follow the consultation requirements set out in section 188, an affected employee can file a complaint with an employment tribunal. If the complaint is well-founded, the tribunal can declare it so and order a protective award, which may include payment of remuneration for up to 180 days.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimants successfully argued that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of TULRCA 1992, leading to a protective award under s.189(3).
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when dismissing claimants, leading to a protective award under section 189(3). The decision was made by Employment Judge Siddall on 21 April 2026.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 2305977/24 and 2308168/24 & Ors
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
Claimant
and
Respondent
Mr [APPELLANT], Mr [APPELLANT] and others (as listed on the Schedule) v
[COMPANY] (in Adminstration)
Held at London South (By Video)
On 21 April 2026
BEFORE: Employment Judge Siddall
Representation
For [NAME]:
In person
For all other Claimants: [redacted]
For the Respondent: [redacted]
For the Secretary of State for Business and Trade: Written submissions
Case Number: 2305977/24 and 2308168/24 & Ors
2 RULE 22 JUDGMENT
The decision of the tribunal is that:
1. The Claimants’ claims that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of their dismissals are well founded.
2. The Tribunal orders the Respondent, by way of protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act, to pay to each of the claimants a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 12 July 2024.
3. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to these awards. In each case the protected period is the period of 90 days beginning on 12 July 2024.
Employment Judge Siddall
Date: 21 April 2026
Case Number: 2305977/24 and 2308168/24 & Ors
3
SCHEDULE OF CLAIMANTS 2305977/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308168/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308169/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308170/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308171/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308172/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308173/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308174/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308175/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308176/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308177/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308178/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308179/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308180/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308181/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308182/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308183/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308184/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308185/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308186/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308187/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308188/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308189/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308190/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308191/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308192/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308193/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308194/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308195/2024 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 2308196/2024 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 2308197/2024 [NAME] 2308198/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308199/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308200/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308201/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308202/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308203/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308204/2024 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 2308205/2024 Mr [NAME]: 2305977/24 and 2308168/24 & Ors
4 2308206/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308207/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308208/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308209/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308210/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308211/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308212/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308213/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308214/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308215/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308216/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308217/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308218/2024 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 2308219/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308220/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308221/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308222/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308223/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308224/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308225/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308226/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308227/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308228/2024 Ms [NAME] [NAME] 2308229/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308230/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308231/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308232/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308233/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308234/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308235/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308236/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308237/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308238/2024 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 2308239/2024 Mr [NAME] 2308240/2024 Ms [NAME] 2308241/2024 Mr [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Orders Protective Award for Dismissed Workers
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requir…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Redundancy Consultation
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Unfair Dismissal Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Claimant £38,527.17 for Unfair Dismissal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Decides Contractor’s Agency Status in Supervision Case
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Claimant awarded outstanding redundancy payment and notice pay 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 section 188 requirements.
- The employer failed to provide proper notice of redundancy.
- The employer dismissed the employee without fair reason or procedure.
- The employer did not pay required remuneration during the protected period.
- The employer did not consult employee representatives when dismissing a large number of employees.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that the employer failed to follow proper dismissal procedures, leading to a protective award for each worker.
Who was involved?
Workers and their former employer were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled in favour of the workers because the employer did not comply with section 188 of TULRCA when dismissing them.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 188 and Section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to follow proper dismissal procedures under section 188 TULRCA was the key issue.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the workers.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer dismisses employees without following proper procedures, they may be required to pay protective awards.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence is mentioned; the case was likely based on procedural non-compliance.
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 legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.