Case 1600207/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gavin Tyler v Rhys Davies and Sons Limited (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600207/2021
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gavin Tyler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mr Gavin Tyler’s complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded because the respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188. The respondent, Rhys Davies & Sons Limited (In Administration), did not attend the hearing, and the matter was heard by video before Employment Judge N Webb on 24 August 2021.
As a remedy, the Tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act requiring the respondent to pay Mr Tyler a sum equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 22 December 2020. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s usual procedure. No separate monetary figure for the award appears in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 consultation requirements; tribunal ordered a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on 22 December 2020, but no monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) 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.