Case 1306078/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Griffiths v Mr M Manders Utensa Limited Mrs E Reading ( in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1306078/2018
- Decision date
- 7 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge The
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Griffiths
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo responses had been entered, and the decision was made on the information before Employment Judge Monk. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal therefore made a protective award in respect of all employees at the respondent's premises at Kings Road, Tysley, Birmingham who were dismissed as redundant on or after 14 September 2018. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 14 September 2018.
The judgment also recorded the usual recoupment information under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, including the respondent's duty to provide employee details and termination dates to the Benefits Agency and the effect of recoupment on payments under the protective award. No separate monetary total for the award is stated in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal declared the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded and made a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 TULRCA 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.