Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Failure
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant union, finding that the employer did not consult adequately before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days. As a result, the tribunal awarded a protective award for the affected workers under s.188 of TULRCA 1992.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must consult adequately when making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days, failing which the claimant is entitled to a protective award under s.188 of TULRCA 1992.
📖 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. The consultation must start early enough, with at least 30 days before the first dismissal if fewer than 100 employees are involved. The representatives can be chosen from recognized trade unions or elected by the affected employees. The consultation should 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 claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award for members dismissed without adequate consultation.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer failed to consult adequately before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days, entitling the claimant to a protective award under s.188 of TULRCA 1992 for a period of 90 days.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 3306476/2025 – 3306497/2025 3305413/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
[NAME] (see attached schedule)
Respondent: [redacted]
2. Secretary of State for Business & Trade
JUDGMENT
(1) The first respondent has failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim for a protective award succeeds.
(2) The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the [NAME] set out in the schedule attached who worked at the first respondent’s [NAME] at 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 26 June 2025 that the employer pay remuneration for the protected period which begins on 26 June 2025 and is for a period of 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
REASONS
1. The [NAME] were employed at the same [NAME] at 2 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the [NAME]”) and were made redundant on or after 26 June 2025.
2. 20 or more employees at the [NAME] were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy, on or within 90 days of 26 June 2025.
3. The claimants were dismissed during this period without any, or any adequate consultation having taken place.
4. The last of the dismissals occurred on 26 June 2025, so all the claims have been presented within the time limit contained in section 189(5)(b) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
5. The first respondent, which is in administration, has not filed a response to the claim. The [NAME] respondent has been copied into the proceedings as statutory guarantor.
6. 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 7 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
................18/05/2026...................................
.....................................................................
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 3306476/2025 Other NA [NAME] 3306477/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306478/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3306479/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3306480/2025 Ms [NAME] 3306481/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306482/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306483/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306484/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306485/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306486/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306487/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306488/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306489/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306490/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306491/2025 Ms [NAME] 3306492/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306493/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306494/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306495/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306496/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306497/2025 Mr [NAME] 3305413/2025 Mr [NAME]: 3306476/2025 – 3306497/2025 3305413/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
[NAME] (see attached schedule)
Respondent: [redacted]
2. Secretary of State for Business & Trade
JUDGMENT
REASONS
Approved by:
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
Date 7 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
MULTIPLE SCHEDULE
Case Number Claimant Name 3306476/2025 Other NA [NAME] 3306477/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306478/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306479/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306480/2025 Ms [NAME] 3306481/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306482/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306483/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306484/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306485/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306486/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306487/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306488/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306489/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3306490/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306491/2025 Ms [NAME] 3306492/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306493/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306494/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3306495/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306496/2025 Mr [NAME] 3306497/2025 Mr [NAME] [NAME] 3305413/2025 Mr M [NAME]
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails in Consultation, Awarded Protective Payment
- 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 Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Claimant: Damages Awarded for Unpaid…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant wins breach of contract case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Wins Compensation for Unpaid Wages and Holidays
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer for Wage Deduc…
- Employment Tribunal Workers Win Case Against Employer for Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay
- 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
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 failed to consult adequately when making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days.
- The employer made unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contractual notice periods.
- The employer did not comply with statutory requirements regarding payment of wages, notice periods, and holiday entitlements.
- The employer did not provide adequate consultation before making redundancies involving 20 or more workers.
- The employer failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements set out in section 188 of TULRCA 1992.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer failed to consult adequately before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days, entitling the claimant union to a protective award.
Who was involved?
The case involved an employment tribunal, a trade union representing workers, and an employer in administration.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the employer must consult adequately before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days to comply with s.188 of TULRCA 1992.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, specifically section 188, was applied.
What argument mattered most?
The lack of adequate consultation before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days was the central issue.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant union.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employer fails to consult adequately before making redundancies affecting 20 or more employees within 90 days, affected workers may be entitled to a protective award under s.188 TULRCA 1992.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify particular evidence or documents; however, the adequacy of consultation is 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's advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving employment law and protective awards.