Case 1403304/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Nicholas Blake (2) Radoslaw Kara (3) Andrew Burt v Glevum Heating & Plumbing Limited (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403304/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Nicholas Blake (2) Radoslaw Kara (3) Andrew Burt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It therefore declared the complaint well founded and made a protective award.
The award was made in respect of Nicholas Blake, Radoslaw Kara and Andrew Burt, who were employees of the respondent at its Gloucester premises and who were dismissed as redundant on or after 9 March 2020. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 9 March 2020.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons are provided beyond the formal declaration and award. No separate monetary figure is set out in the judgment text; the award is expressed as remuneration for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was found well founded. The tribunal made a protective award in respect of Nicholas Blake, Radoslaw Kara and Andrew Burt for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 9 March 2020. The written record does not state a separate money figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULRCA 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.