Case 1305248/2021 · Employment Tribunal
UNITE the Union v International Currency Exchange Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1305248/2021
- Decision date
- 12 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
UNITE the Union
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUNITE the Union was recognised by International Currency Exchange Ltd (in Administration) for redundancy consultation. The respondent entered administration on 5 October 2021 and dismissed 20 employees assigned to its Luton office by reason of redundancy that day. The employees were assigned to an establishment where 20 or more redundancies were proposed within a period of 90 days.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult the union in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It granted the union's section 189 complaint and determined that the protective period should be 90 days from the first dismissal on 5 October 2021. The protective award payments were to rank as unsecured claims in the respondent's insolvency; no monetary total was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to inform and consult; the protected period was 90 days from 5 October 2021. No monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ss.188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.