Case 1601193/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Jones and others (see attached Schedule) and Mr R Bowring v Gwynedd Transport Ltd (in Administration) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 1601193/2024
Decision date: 24 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr G Jones and others (see attached Schedule) and Mr R Bowring

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal amended Mr Bowring's claim to record that his place of work, or establishment, had been Shotton rather than Holyhead.

The tribunal found that Gwynedd Transport Ltd (in Administration) failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award for all claimants and ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for 90 days beginning on 15 January 2024, with no uplift for breach of any ACAS Code.

The judgment reminds the first respondent of its obligations under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment does not provide further findings or monetary calculations.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The judgment records a failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and makes a protective award of 90 days' remuneration, but does not state monetary figures.	Upheld	—	—

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.