Employment Tribunal Orders Protective Award for Non-Compliance
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer must comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. As a result, the claimant received a protective award.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with the requirements set out in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's complaint regarding the employer's failure to comply with statutory requirements was successful, leading to a protective award.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal found that the employer failed to comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, resulting in a protective award for the claimant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Case Number: 2304158/2023 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
[redacted]
Respondents: [redacted] Administration) 2. [NAME_3] - [NAME_3] (Administrator)
Heard at:
London South Employment Tribunal (via CVP video conference)
On:
24th July 2024
Before: Employment Judge Sudra (sitting alone)
Appearances: Claimant:
[redacted] Respondents: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s complaints under section 189 of the [NAME_4] (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) of a failure by the Respondent to comply with the requirements of section 188 of TULR(C)A is well founded.
2. The Respondent is ordered, by way of a protective award under section 189(3) of TULR(C)A, to pay remuneration to the Claimant named in the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 27th July 2023 (being the date on which the dismissal to which the complaints relate took effect).
3. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.
________________________
Employment Judge Sudra
Date: 17 January 2025
Sent to the parties on
Date: 27 January 2025
Case Number: 2304158/2023 2
Notes
1. A protective award is a two-stage process. The tribunal at this stage makes no financial award, but give a judgment that the claimant is entitled to a protective award in the terms set out above. The claimant must then seek payment of his award from the respondent, quantifying the amount.
2. Failure to pay (should that occur), or any dispute as to the amount payable, then becomes a matter for a further separate claim under s192 of the [NAME_4] (Consolidation) Act 1992 for payment of the award.
3. Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided, they will be displayed on the tribunal’s online register of judgments, which is visible to internet searches.
Case Number: 2304158/2023 3
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ruled that the employer must comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and granted a protective award to the claimant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the employer's failure to comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the employer must comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the employer failed to do so, leading to a protective award for the claimant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the employer failed to comply with statutory requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that if an employer fails to comply with statutory requirements, the employee may be entitled to a protective award.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.