Claimant v Industrial Coating Services Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2023

The claimants brought protective award complaints under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 arising from redundancy dismissals with an effective date of termination of 20 December 2021. The Joint Administrators were appointed on that date, and the first redundancy-related communication to the claimants was an email from the administrators inviting them to a video meeting, followed by a letter confirming the termination process and enclosing a fact sheet for Redundancy Payment Service claims. The tribunal dealt with the case on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The First Respondent accepted that there had been no consultation over the redundancy dismissals, and the tribunal found that 52 employees were made redundant at the same time with immediate effect on 20 December 2021, including the listed claimants. It found that the First Respondent did not recognise a trade union for any description of employee, and that because the employees were made redundant immediately on appointment of the Joint Administrators there was insufficient time for employee representatives to be elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A. The tribunal therefore found that there had been no proper warning or consultation and that the section 188 duty had been breached.

The tribunal upheld the protective award complaints and made an award in favour of each claimant listed in the schedule for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 20 December 2021. It also recorded the recoupment provisions applicable to the award under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, including the requirement for the First Respondent to provide specified information to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. No separate order was made against the Second Respondent. The judgment also notes that other monetary claims for David Cuskern and John Featham would be dealt with separately, and that David Dorman was not determined in this judgment because further evidence was needed on employee status at the date of administration.