Case 1401413/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Burleigh v The Wild Beer Company Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401413/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms R Goddard, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Burleigh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held unanimously that Miss Burleigh was entitled to present a complaint under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal found that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the 1992 Act was well founded. It made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay her remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 December 2022.
No monetary amount was specified in the written judgment. The annex set out recoupment information relating to benefits and the Secretary of State, including the respondent's duty to provide employee information and the process for any Recoupment Notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment concerns a complaint under section 189(1)(d) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the respondent failed to comply with section 188. The locked taxonomy has no separate protective award or collective redundancy consultation category, so this is classified as trade_union_related. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 189(1)(d) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.