Case 1404614/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Unite the Union v JD Lydney (In Administration) — 2021

Case reference: 1404614/2020
Decision date: 2 November 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Pirani Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Unite the Union

Respondent

JD Lydney (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a judgment by consent under Rule 64. The tribunal recorded that the parties had agreed the terms of judgment, and it ordered the respondents to pay each of the listed protective award claimants a protective award of 6 weeks' pay under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The judgment also states that these claims were for a protective award under section 184(2)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the Secretary of State was liable to pay the maximum of 8 weeks' arrears of pay including any protective award awarded by the tribunal. It records that the protective award level in this case was 6 weeks.

The tribunal noted that the establishment rule applied and that the parties confirmed more than 20 employees were party to the proceedings. It further stated that the claims brought by the claimant and any other claim by any of the claimants were dismissed. No order for expenses was made.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	By consent, the tribunal ordered a protective award of 6 weeks' pay for each claimant listed in the schedule under section 189 TULRCA 1992. The judgment does not state the weekly pay figures or a total monetary sum.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The judgment also states that the claims brought by the claimant and any other claim by any of the claimants are dismissed. It does not identify any separate claim type beyond the protective award claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.

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.