Protective Award Granted for Non-Compliance with Consultation Obligations
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of workers who claimed they were not properly consulted before being made redundant. The employer was ordered to pay a protective award to the workers for a period of 90 days.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with collective consultation obligations before making redundancies to avoid a protective award under Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
📖 Technical summary
An employer must comply with collective consultation obligations before making redundancies.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal granted a protective award to workers due to the employer's failure to comply with collective consultation obligations before making redundancies. The award covers a period of 90 days starting from November 24, 2023.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Case No.1603108/2023 (See Schedule)
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: [redacted]
Respondent:
[redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The claimants listed in the Schedule attached (“Schedule”) were all assigned to one ‘establishment’.
2. The claims for a protective award under Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 brought by the claimants are all well- founded in that the Respondent failed to comply with its statutory collective consultation obligations before proposed redundancy dismissals took effect.
3. Under Section 189(1)(d), section 189 (2), (3) and (4) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 the Tribunal makes a protective award in respect of the claimants listed in the Schedule and the respondent is ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 24 November 2023.
4. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to these awards.
Employment Judge Brace
Judgment: 13 January 2025
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
[NAME_4] Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Case No.1603108/2023 (See Schedule)
2 Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments (apart from judgments under rule 52) 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. Public access to employment tribunal decisions
Case No.1603108/2023 (See Schedule)
3 SCHEDULE
Case Number Claimant 1603108/2023 [NAME_7] 1603110/2023 [NAME_9] 1603111/2023 [NAME_12] 1603112/2023 [NAME_15] 1603113/2023 [NAME_18] 1603114/2023 [NAME_21] 1603115/2023 [NAME_24] 1603116/2023 [NAME_27] 1603117/2023 [NAME_30] 1603118/2023 [NAME_33] 1603119/2023 [NAME_36] 1603120/2023 [NAME_39] 1603121/2023 [NAME_42] 1603122/2023 [NAME_46] 1603123/2023 [NAME_49] 1603124/2023 [NAME_51] 1603125/2023 [NAME_54] 1603126/2023 [NAME_56] 1603127/2023 [NAME_59] 1603128/2023 [NAME_62] 1603129/2023 [NAME_65] 1603130/2023 [NAME_40] [NAME_64] 1603131/2023 [NAME_68] 1603132/2023 [NAME_71] 1603133/2023 [NAME_74] 1603134/2023 [NAME_77] 1603135/2023 [NAME_80] 1603136/2023 [NAME_82] 1603137/2023 [NAME_85] 1603138/2023 [NAME_88] 1603139/2023 [NAME_91] 1603140/2023 [NAME_94] 1603141/2023 [NAME_97]
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal granted a protective award to workers due to the employer's failure to comply with collective consultation obligations before making redundancies.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the employer had complied with the legal requirement to consult collectively before making redundancies.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the workers because the employer failed to meet the statutory requirements for collective consultation before implementing redundancies.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1s 188 and 189, and the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the employer had not fulfilled its obligation to consult collectively with the workers before making redundancies.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the workers who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a protective award if their employer failed to comply with collective consultation obligations before making redundancies.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.