Case 1406285/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Brodie, Solicitor For the v Pittards plc (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406285/2023
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Brodie, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Philip Selby was a salaried employee of Pittards plc at its Sherborne Road premises in Yeovil. Pittards entered administration on 4 September 2023, and on 6 September 2023 the administrators dismissed all 139 employees, including the claimant, by reason of redundancy with immediate effect. The Community Union was recognised for collective bargaining in respect of hourly paid leather workers, but that did not include the claimant. No elected employee representatives were in place.
The Employment Judge found that the respondent failed to undertake any adequate consultation before the dismissals and did not arrange the election or appointment of employee representatives for the purposes of collective consultation. The judgment set out the statutory framework in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, including the duty to consult appropriate representatives where 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment, the requirement to begin consultation in good time, and the requirement to consult about avoiding, reducing and mitigating dismissals.
The tribunal held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 was well founded. It therefore made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 6 September 2023. The extracted text does not state a single quantified monetary total for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award for failure to comply with section 188 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal ordered remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 6 September 2023, but the extracted judgment does not state a quantified monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188(1A) TULRCA 1992
- section 188(1B) TULRCA 1992
- section 188(2) TULRCA 1992
- section 188(4) 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.