Case 1601811/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Quinn Radiators Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601811/2019
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Members
- Panel members
- Mr F Collier, Ms L Owen
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the additional set of claims at Cardiff by video on 6 March 2023 before Employment Judge R Harfield, with Mr F Collier and Ms L Owen as members. It found that the 23 employees before it were assigned to the First Respondent's Newport establishment at Imperial Park and that, when the factory closed on 10 June 2019 and administrators were called in, they were dismissed as redundant without warning.
The tribunal found there had been no warning, no consultation and no disclosure of the information required by section 188 TULCRA, either with Unite or with individual employees. It held that the First Respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days, so the collective consultation duty applied, and that there was a complete breach of that duty. No special circumstances defence was run.
Applying the approach in Susie Radin Limited v GMB, the tribunal said the starting point for a protective award was 90 days and that reduction would only be justified by mitigating factors. It found no mitigating factors and made protective awards for the listed employees for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 June 2019. It also noted that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied.
One remaining claimant, Maura McCabe (1600047/2020), was not determined at this hearing because her situation was said to be more complicated and further evidence was needed on whether she was assigned to the unit in question. Her claim was to be relisted for a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under sections 188 and 189 TULCRA for the listed employees; the tribunal made awards for a protected period of 90 days, but the judgment does not quantify a monetary sum for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 188 TULCRA
- section 189 TULCRA
- section 195 TULCRA
- special circumstances defence
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
- The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559
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.