Case 1402704/2022 · Employment Tribunal
S Rhoades and others (See schedule) v Testerworld Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1402704/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Rhoades and others (See schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants' claims were well founded. The claims were that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of their dismissals.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay each claimant a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. The award for each claimant was a payment equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on the protected-period start date shown for that claimant in the schedule.
The judgment records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the awards, with the protected period in each case being 90 days from the scheduled date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment upheld claims that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made protective awards under section 189(3). The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation category, so this is classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- 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.