Case 1804958/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Binns Mr A Ware Mr S Gleadhall Mr A Chadburn Mr J Martin Mr A Riley v RJD Fabrications Ltd (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804958/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Binns Mr A Ware Mr S Gleadhall Mr A Chadburn Mr J Martin Mr A Riley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Sheffield on 12 February 2020 before Employment Judge Rostant sitting alone. The claimants were present in person and the respondent did not attend. The judgment records that all claims other than claims for a protective award were dismissed upon withdrawal.
On the protective award claim, the tribunal declared that the respondent had breached its obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because it failed to organise an election of employee representatives. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a protective award to the claimants.
The award was made for the protected period of 90 days from 2 July 2019. The extracted judgment text provided here does not state a monetary amount for the award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that all claims other than the protective award were dismissed upon withdrawal, but it does not identify those non-protective claims individually. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Trade union | The tribunal declared that the respondent breached s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by failing to organise an election of employee representatives and ordered a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.