Case 1309054/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Baldwin, Mr H Davies, Mr A Newman & Mr R Drew v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309054/2020
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Baldwin, Mr H Davies, Mr A Newman & Mr R Drew
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe second respondent did not submit a response to the claims, and the administrator consented to the claims proceeding. The tribunal decided the matter under Rule 21 on the information before it, including witness statements from the claimants and submissions from the first respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimants worked at a single establishment where there was no recognised trade union. It found that the second respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA.
The complaints under TULRCA section 189 were well founded and succeeded. The second respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 March 2020; no specific monetary sums were stated in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under TULRCA section 189 for failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A collective consultation requirements; classified as other because the locked taxonomy has no protective award category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- sections 188 and 188A TULRCA
- TULRCA section 189
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.