Case 1602613/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Unite the Union and others (see appendix 1) v Wrexham Wire Ltd – in Administration and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602613/2020
- Decision date
- 22 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Unite the Union and others (see appendix 1)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint that Wrexham Wire Ltd, in administration, failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded.
A protective award was made for all employees of the First Respondent who brought claims in the proceedings or fell within the bargaining unit defined in the union recognition agreement, were assigned to work at the Ash Road North, Holt, Wrexham establishment, and were dismissed as redundant on or after 6 August 2020.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay those employees remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 6 August 2020. The judgment stated that it did not prevent a claim being made to the Secretary of State for payment from the National Insurance fund in respect of the First Respondent's liability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The complaint was that the First Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration, but no monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.