Case 1309613/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Matthews v Nationwide Crash Repair Centres Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309613/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Matthews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the first respondent at its Solihull establishment and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 4 September 2020. The Tribunal permitted him to amend his claim to add a claim for a protective award under s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, noting that the respondent had raised no objection.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant and other employees in accordance with s.188 and s.188A. It was satisfied from information provided by the claimant and others that Solihull was an establishment where more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant. A protective award was made for 90 days from 4 September 2020.
The claims for redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment stated that the unfair dismissal claim was not affected by this judgment, and made no order for costs or fees.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the Tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment refers to a notice pay claim, dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675
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.