Case 1803137/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hall v Sash UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803137/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Armstrong Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response under rule 16, and the administrator later consented to the claims proceeding by email dated 9 January 2022. The Tribunal also recorded that it was satisfied, on the claimant's evidence, that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought within three months of the last dismissal and that it was brought within a reasonable further period, so the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal found that Sash UK Ltd failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It declared the claim for a protective award well-founded and made a protective award in respect of Mr Hall, who had been employed at the respondent's premises at Ferrymoor Way, Grimethorpe, South Yorkshire and was dismissed as redundant on 12 June 2020.
The protected period was set at 90 days from 12 June 2020. The Tribunal said it was just and equitable to make the maximum award because there had been a complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements for collective consultation. The judgment also records that the recoupment provisions did not apply because the claimant did not claim any benefits during the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under TULRCA ss.188 and 188A; the Tribunal made a 90-day protected period but the extracted text does not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- not reasonably practicable / reasonable further period
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- just and equitable
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.