Case 1603777/2024 · Employment Tribunal
GMB Union v Everest 2020 Limited (in administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1603777/2024
- Decision date
- 19 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe First Respondent (Everest 2020 Limited, in administration) was a manufacturing company at Treherbert, Rhondda Cynon Taf, employing approximately 96 people. Administrators were appointed on 24 April 2024; on 29 April 2024 employees were informed that no offers had been received for the business and that they were being dismissed by reason of redundancy. The Claimant trade union (GMB Union) was recognised by the First Respondent in respect of its hourly-paid employees and had been substituted by Tribunal order for the original individual claimants.
The Tribunal found that the First Respondent had proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a 90-day period, that the duty to consult under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 had arisen, and that there had been a complete failure by the First Respondent to comply: no information was provided to the Claimant or the employees and no consultation took place. Following the guidance in Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and ors that the starting point is the 90-day maximum and should be reduced only for mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal awarded the maximum 90-day protected period beginning on 29 April 2024. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.