Employment Tribunal Orders Protective Award for Dismissed Workers
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the workers who were dismissed without proper notice from their employer. As a result, the employer must pay a protective award to compensate for this failure. This decision was made by Employment Judge Ramsden on 19 May 2026.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must pay remuneration to an employee for a protected period if they fail to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📖 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, and must cover ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impact of the dismissals.
If an employer fails to follow the consultation requirements set out in section 188, an affected employee can file a complaint to an employment tribunal. If the complaint is found valid, the tribunal can 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
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, leading to a successful claim for a protective award under section 189. The decision was made by Employment Judge Ramsden on 19 May 2026.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 2301240/2025 2301241/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants:
[redacted]
[NAME]
Respondents: [redacted] 2. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
JUDGMENT BY CONSENT Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
1. Both the Claimants were employed by [NAME]) [COMPANY] (in [NAME]).
2. [NAME]) [COMPANY] (in [NAME]) failed to adequately comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the claim for a protective award brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeds.
3. [NAME]) [COMPANY] (in [NAME]) is ordered to pay remuneration (i.e., a protective award) to the Claimants for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 7 October 2024, being the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint relates took effect.
4. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees in relation to these proceedings.
Approved by: Employment Judge Ramsden
Date: 19 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
20 May 2026 .....................................................................
..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Payments for Non-Compliant Dismissals
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requir…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Failed to Consult Properly Before Redundancies: Claimants Win Prot…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Period for Redundancy Consultation Fa…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Ordered to Pay Unlawful Wage Deduction
- Employment Tribunal Workers Win Case Against Employer for Wage Deductions and Holiday Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim 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
- Employer failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
- Employer made unauthorised deductions from wages or breached notice periods in employment contracts.
- Employer did not provide adequate consultation before making redundancies affecting a significant number of employees.
- Employer failed to comply with statutory requirements concerning trade union rights and contractual obligations.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal ruled that the employer failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, leading to a protective award under section 189.
Who was involved?
A worker who was dismissed by their employer without proper notice.
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal found that the employer failed to comply with legal requirements for dismissal notices, leading to a protective award.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 188 and section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to provide proper notice under section 188 led to a protective award for the dismissed worker.
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 provide proper notice of dismissal, workers may be entitled to a protective award.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tribunal relied on the failure to comply with section 188 as the key evidence.
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 advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.