Case 1802797/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jones and 8 Others v Sheffield Refrigeration Limited (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802797/2022
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
- Panel members
- Mr K Lannaman, Mr B Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jones and 8 Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, before Employment Judge Bright sitting with Mr K Lannaman and Mr B Roberts, heard the claims of Mr A Jones and eight others against Sheffield Refrigeration Limited (in liquidation) at Leeds by Cloud Video Platform on 30 January 2023. The respondent did not attend. The judgment records that the claims were brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of an alleged failure to comply with section 188 of that Act.
The Tribunal held that the complaints set out in the table were well-founded. It therefore made a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act, ordering the respondent to pay remuneration to the claimants for a period of 90 days beginning on 11 March 2022. The Recoupment Regulations were stated to apply.
The Tribunal also decided that it had jurisdiction to consider Mr Brady's claim, case number 1803586/2022, because it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the normal time limit. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual tribunal rule.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements. The Tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to consider Mr Brady's claim because it had not been reasonably practicable to present it within the normal time limit. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- reasonably practicable time limit test
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.