Case 1802175/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cook and others (see Schedule) v YTM Group Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802175/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr Taj, Mr Downs
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Cook and others (see Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at Leeds on 2 December 2019 before Employment Judge Lancaster with lay members Mr Taj and Mr Downs, the tribunal found that the first respondent failed to elect or consult with appropriate employee representatives, in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claims for a protective award succeeded in respect of each named claimant.
The tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 11 January 2019 for the claimants employed at the Castleford establishment and beginning on 14 February 2019 for the claimants employed at the Pontefract establishment. The written record states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 apply, and that any award would be postponed pending service of a recoupment notice by the Secretary of State, with only the balance payable directly to the claimants. The judgment does not quantify the award in money terms.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment awards remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but does not state a numeric sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996
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.