Case 1804396/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Oldroyd and others v Monsoon Accessorise Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804396/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr G Corbett, Mr W Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Oldroyd and others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard evidence from Louise Oldroyd on behalf of all 11 claimants concerning the respondent's York store, which closed on 10 June 2020. Mrs Oldroyd was the store manager. The respondent did not appear. The Tribunal recorded that the Administrator had consented to the protective award proceedings, but had not consented to the holiday pay claims.
For the protective award claim, the Tribunal applied section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and referred to USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Ltd [2015] 577 on the meaning of "establishment". It held that each store was a separate establishment, so the collective consultation rules did not apply to stores with fewer than 20 employees made redundant within the relevant period. On the facts found, the York store had 14 employees, so the claims for protective awards for failure to consult were dismissed.
The holiday pay claims were also dismissed, but on a procedural basis rather than on their merits. The Tribunal held that the Administrator had not given consent to the commencement or continuation of those proceedings. It therefore did not determine the substance of the outstanding holiday pay claims.
The Tribunal said it had considerable sympathy with the claimants and that it took no pleasure in dismissing the claims, but it was unable to find in their favour because the collective consultation requirement did not apply and the holiday pay claims lacked the required consent to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective awards for failure to consult under section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal held that the York store was a separate establishment, had 14 employees, and therefore did not meet the 20-employee threshold for collective consultation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claims for outstanding holiday pay were dismissed because the Administrator had not provided consent to the commencement or continuation of those proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Ltd [2015] 577
- establishment as the local employment unit
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.