Case 1600955/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Stott v Phenolic Ltd (in Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600955/2019
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Stott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Stott brought a complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 alleging that Phenolic Ltd (in Administration) had failed to comply with section 188 of the 1992 Act. The hearing was at Cardiff by video on 8 June 2021 before Employment Judge G Cawthray. The respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal held that the complaint was well-founded. It made a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act, ordering the respondent to pay Mr Stott a payment equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 13 May 2019. The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply. The extracted text does not record a separate monetary total for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, based on an alleged failure to comply with section 188, to be well-founded. It ordered a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 13 May 2019. The extracted text does not state the monetary value of the remuneration rate used to calculate the award. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.