Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requirements
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled that an employer must comply with specific requirements regarding dismissals as outlined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant successfully argued that these requirements were not met, leading to a protective award being granted.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of dismissals to avoid protected awards under section 189(3).
📖 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. Consultation must start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal, and can extend to 45 days if more than 100 employees are involved. The consultation should aim to find 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 or representative can file a complaint with an employment tribunal. If the complaint is found valid, the tribunal can order the employer to pay compensation for up to 180 days, starting from the date of the first dismissal or the date of the award, whichever is earlier.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claims regarding protected awards under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were successful.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's claims that the employer failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of dismissals were well-founded. The tribunal ordered the employer to pay a protective award under section 189(3).
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 1402619/2024 and 1403171/2024 and Others (See Schedule)
1 of 3
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants:
[redacted]
Mr [APPELLANT] (Lead Claimant 1403171/2024)
Respondent: [redacted] Liquidation)
Interested Party: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Heard at: Southampton (By CVP)
On: 5 September 2025
Before: Employment Judge Self
Appearances
For the Claimants 1402619/2024: [NAME] – In Person
For the Claimants 1403171/2024 Mr [COUNSEL] - Counsel
For the Respondent (1):
No Response or Attendance
For the Interested Party (2):
No Attendance but written representations
JUDGMENT (As corrected pursuant to Rule 67 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2025) Upon the Respondent having failed to present a response to the claim and upon the interested party indicating that whilst it does not actively oppose the Claimant it rightly reminds the Tribunal to ensure that the statutory requirements for Protected Awards are met before any Judgment is given.
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 of 3
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 28 August 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 28 August 2024.
Employment Judge Self
Date 5 September 2025 Corrected on 23 April 2026
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 18 November 2025
AMENDED JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 24 April 2026
SCHEDULE OF CLAIMANTS [NAME] - 1402619/2024 Ms [NAME] - 1402620/2024 Ms [NAME] - 1402621/2024 Mr [NAME] -1403171/2024 Ms M [NAME] - 1403173/2024 Mr [NAME] 1403174/2024 Mr [NAME] - 1403175/2024 Ms [NAME] - 1403176/2024 Mr [NAME] - 1403177/2024 Ms [NAME] - 1403178/2024
3 of 3
Ms [NAME] T ([NAME]) [NAME] - 1403179/2024 Mr [NAME] - 1403180/2024 Mr [NAME] - 1403181/2024 Ms E [NAME] - 1403182/2024 Ms S [NAME] - 1403183/2024
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Successful Claimant Awarded Costs by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Payments for Non-Compliant Dismissals
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Provide Redundancy Payment After Un…
- Employment Tribunal Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Compensation to Employees
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Successfully Proves Employee Status for Notice and Redundancy Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Award for Collective Consultation Bre…
- 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
- The employer did not comply with the collective consultation requirements set out in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
- The employer failed to provide a fair reason for dismissing an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The employer dismissed an employee without proper notice or justification, violating statutory requirements concerning trade union rights and contractual obligations.
- The employer did not consider the reality of the working relationship when determining employment status.
- The employer was found to have dismissed employees unfairly.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant regarding protected awards under section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Who was involved?
A worker brought a case against their employer at an Employment Tribunal.
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal decided in favour of the claimant because the employer failed to comply with section 188 requirements regarding dismissals.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was applied, along with relevant regulations.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant argued that the employer did not comply with section 188 requirements regarding dismissals.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing a similar issue should ensure their employer complies with section 188 requirements to avoid protected awards.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence is mentioned, but compliance with statutory requirements was the key factor.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to an 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.