Case 1800834/2024 · Employment Tribunal
GMB trade union v H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration) 2.Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800834/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
GMB trade union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant trade union, GMB, brought a complaint that H.P.A.S Limited trading as Safestyle UK (in administration) failed to comply with section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to consultation as a representative of employees who might be affected by proposed dismissals. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 and the Tribunal found the complaint well-founded.
The Tribunal made a protective award requiring the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period to employees at its Wombwell site who were dismissed as redundant on 30 October 2023 and in respect of whom the claimant trade union was recognised in the listed job roles: Foremen, General/Office Cleaners, Production Operatives including Quality Control and Waste Recycle, Logistics and Ancillary Production Operatives, Remake Shop Floor Workers, and Maintenance Staff. The protected period was 90 days from 30 October 2023, and the Recoupment Regulations were stated to apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment. The Tribunal found the complaint under section 188(1) TULRCA 1992 well-founded and made a protective award; the judgment does not state a separate monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 judgment
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.