Case 1306302/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hoof Mr A Warren Mr T Cole Mr K Whitfield v Go Plant Limited (in administration) Interested Party: Secretary of State for Business and Trade FINAL HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306302/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hoof Mr A Warren Mr T Cole Mr K Whitfield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Go Plant Limited (in administration) proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, and that the claimants were included in that proposal. It further found that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 3 May 2024.
On the collective consultation complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It held that the claimants' complaints under section 189 were well founded.
The tribunal set the protected period at 90 days beginning on 3 May 2024. It ordered the respondent to pay each claimant a protective award consisting of remuneration for that protected period. No monetary figure was stated in the written decision extract provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under TULRCA section 189 for failure to organise the election of employee representatives and consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A; the tribunal found the complaints well founded and ordered a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ss.188 and 188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 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.