Case 1401107/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Bristow, Ms Chapman, Ms Doll and Mrs Stratford, all in person For the v JE Beale plc - In Administration — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401107/2020
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
- Panel members
- Mr J Shah, Mr D Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Bristow, Ms Chapman, Ms Doll and Mrs Stratford, all in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought claims for a protective award under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging failure to comply with s.188 collective consultation requirements. The respondent was in administration and did not attend. The administrators had consented to the proceedings continuing only in respect of the protective award claim.
The tribunal found that employee representatives had been appointed after the administrators were appointed, and that at Head Office only one volunteer, Ms Herbert, came forward. No election was required because the number of candidates matched the available representative places. A consultation meeting took place on 28 January 2020, and the claimants were told of their immediate redundancy on 30 January, with dismissal taking effect on 31 January.
The tribunal considered that there may have been a claim in relation to the consultation process, including the absence of evidence that written information required by s.188(4) had been provided to representatives. However, because the employees were represented, the claim should have been brought by the employee representative under s.189(1)(b), not by the claimants themselves. The tribunal therefore dismissed the protective award complaints. It also dismissed Ms Doll's application to join Aviva Insurance Limited, identifying uncertainties about the insured party and policy coverage, a limitation issue, and the fact that Aviva had not been notified of the application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under s.189 TULRCA for alleged failure to comply with s.188 collective consultation requirements. The tribunal dismissed the complaints because the claimants did not have jurisdiction/locus to bring them under s.189(1)(b); the appropriate employee representative should have brought the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.189(1)(b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010
- Irwell v Watson and others [2021] EWCA Civ 67
- Mercy v Northgate HR Limited [2008] ICR 410
- Phillips v Xtera Ltd [2012] ICR 171
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.