Employment Tribunal Rules on Redundancy Consultation
📌 In brief
The Employment Judge ruled that an employer must consult with elected employee representatives when dismissing over 20 workers in less than 90 days. In this case, the respondent did not comply with these requirements, leading to a protective award for affected employees.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must consult employee representatives in accordance with section 188 when dismissing more than 20 employees within 90 days.
📖 What the law says
The employer must make reasonable arrangements to ensure a fair election of employee representatives. The employer must also determine the number and type of representatives needed to adequately represent all affected employees. Affected employees must be allowed to vote for representatives without unreasonable exclusion. The election process must allow for secret voting and accurate counting of votes.
When an employer proposes to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant within 90 days, they must consult with appropriate employee representatives. Consultations must start early, at least 30 days before the first dismissal, and must aim to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the consequences of the dismissals.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was dismissed as redundant and the respondent failed to comply with section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge ruled that the respondent failed to comply with section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by not ensuring employee representatives were elected before dismissing more than 20 employees within a period of 90 days. The claimant was dismissed as redundant, and the Tribunal granted a protective award.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4101102/2025 & others (see attached schedule)
Employment Judge P O’[NAME]
A [APPELLANT]
(In Compulsory Liquidation)
Respondent
JUDGMENT Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
The Employment Judge has decided to issue the following judgment on the available material under rule 22.
1. The claimant is entitled to bring this claim because the complaint concerns a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and the claimant was an employee dismissed as redundant.
2. No response was presented to this claim within the applicable time limit.
3. The respondent is in compulsory liquidation but the relevant court granted permission for the continuation of these proceedings on 2 March 2026.
4. The complaints that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 and section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are well founded.
5. The respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. 6. The respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with s.188A, and then to consult with them in accordance with s.188.
7. The Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of employees based at Unit A, [NAME], Grangemouth [POSTCODE] and the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period begins with 24 December 2024 and is for 90 days.
6 March 2026
____________________________ Date sent to Parties
Multiple Schedule
Multiple: 4100946 - [APPELLANT] (In Liquidation)
Case Number Claimant Respondent 4101103/2025 Mr [APPELLANT] (In Liquidation)
4101104/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101105/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101106/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101107/2025 Mrs [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101109/2025 Miss [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101110/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101111/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101112/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101113/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101114/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101115/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101116/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101117/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101118/2025 Mrs [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101119/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101120/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101121/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101122/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
4101123/2025 Mr [COMPANY] (In Liquidation)
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails in Redundancy Process, Entitling Workers to Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Consultation, Faces Protective Award
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Protective Payments for Non-Compliant Dismissals
- Employment Tribunal Employer Fails Redundancy Notice Requirements: Protective Award Granted
- Employment Tribunal Employer Failed to Consult Properly Before Redundancies: Claimants Win Prot…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Judge Ruling: Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages an…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Workers' Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Employer Must Comply with Protected Awards Requir…
- Employment Tribunal Unpaid Holiday Pay Claim Succeeds at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Orders Protective Award for Dismissed Workers
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Employer Liable for Unauthorised Wage Deductions
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 consult employee representatives as required by section 188 before dismissing multiple employees.
- Employer made unauthorised wage deductions without lawful justification.
- Employer did not provide proper notice of redundancy under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
- Employer breached statutory requirements concerning trade union rights and contractual obligations.
- Employer did not comply with consultation requirements under the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 when making redundancies involving 20 or more employees.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The employer failed to consult employee representatives before dismissing over 20 workers within 90 days.
Who was involved?
A worker and an employer who dismissed more than 20 employees in a short period.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court ruled that the employer must consult with elected representatives before making such dismissals.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to consult with elected representatives before dismissing employees.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the claimant, as the employer failed to comply with legal requirements.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Employees have rights to be consulted if an employer plans to dismiss over 20 workers within 90 days.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The court considered the number of employees dismissed and the timeframe involved.
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.