Case 1600375/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Community the Union and others v UK Windows & Doors Ltd and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 1600375/2024
Decision date: 7 July 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge C Sharp Dated

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Community the Union and others

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The judgment records that the First Respondent conceded that protective awards could be made for many claimants in the multiple claim. It also records a conceded complaint that the First Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the claimants covered by the award.

The Tribunal made a protective award for employees in specified bargaining-unit roles at Taffs Well, Williamstown and Treorchy who were dismissed as redundant on or after 25 September 2023, and for other conceded employees at Taffs Well, Williamstown, Treorchy and Evolution. The award was for 90 days' remuneration, with the Recoupment Regulations applying, but no monetary sum was set out.

For case 1600375/2024, Gareth Gooding, the judgment states that this was a duplicate claim which the affected claimants agreed could be withdrawn and dismissed, leaving claim 1600379/2024.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	This claim number for Gareth Gooding was identified as a duplicate and agreed to be withdrawn and dismissed, leaving claim 1600379/2024. The underlying complaint in the multiple was for a protective award under section 188 TULRCA 1992.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.