Case 1403947/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs G Polychronopolus For the v Heritage Window Systems Ltd (In Administration) — 2020

Case reference: 1403947/2019
Decision date: 28 April 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs G Polychronopolus For the

Respondent

Heritage Window Systems Ltd (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a claim by 39 employees for a protective award. The respondent entered administration on 29 July 2019 and on 31 July 2019 the joint administrators told employees they were made redundant with immediate effect. Three employees, including Mrs Polychronopulos, were retained until 8 August 2019 and were then made redundant on that date.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not recognise an independent trade union, that there were no employee or workplace representatives in place, that no elections were arranged, and that there was no consultation with the claimants before the dismissals. It therefore held that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

For that reason the claim for a protective award succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to the 39 claimants for a protected period of 90 days beginning on the date of dismissal, and stated that each employee was entitled to the award for 90 days irrespective of the date their employment ended.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but did not state a single monetary figure in the judgment text.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.