Case 1801764/2024 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Miss A Sarkar (1801764/2024 & 1802424/2024) (2) Miss P Parihar (1801765/2024 & 1802425/2025) (3) Miss S Summers (1801782/2024) (4) Ms L Johnson (1801783/2024) (5) Mr D Toyn (1801784/2024) (6) Ms R Berry (1801785/2024) (7) Ms D McLoughlin (1802929/2024) (8) Ms R Salt (1803982/2024) (9) Ms D Allen (1804124/2024) (10) Mr C Shaw (1804294/2024) v SSB Group (in administration) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 1801764/2024
Decision date: 15 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Singh Representation
Venue: Leeds

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Miss A Sarkar (1801764/2024 & 1802424/2024) (2) Miss P Parihar (1801765/2024 & 1802425/2025) (3) Miss S Summers (1801782/2024) (4) Ms L Johnson (1801783/2024) (5) Mr D Toyn (1801784/2024) (6) Ms R Berry (1801785/2024) (7) Ms D McLoughlin (1802929/2024) (8) Ms R Salt (1803982/2024) (9) Ms D Allen (1804124/2024) (10) Mr C Shaw (1804294/2024)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by not electing or consulting with appropriate employee representatives. Claimants (3) to (10) were found eligible for a protective award for 90 days from 29 November 2023, including those dismissed after the protective period because they were affected employees.

For claimants (1) and (2), including Miss A Sarkar, the tribunal recorded that they did not attend the hearing or respond to the request for information. The tribunal therefore did not consider it had sufficient information to make a judgment in their favour and indicated they would be asked to explain their non-attendance and provide the requested information.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. For claimant (1), Miss A Sarkar, the tribunal did not consider it had sufficient information to make a judgment in her favour because she did not attend or respond to the tribunal's request for information.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.

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.