Case 1805206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Unite the Union v Spicers Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805206/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Unite the Union
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant union was recognised for the respondent’s warehouse staff at the Heywood site, where there were 96 employees. The tribunal found that the respondent went into administration on 14 May 2020 after redundancy proposals had been identified on 20 April 2020, but that there had been no consultation with the union on behalf of its members. The respondent had notified the workforce and the claimant that redundancies might be necessary, started a process to elect employee representatives, and arranged a ballot, but that process was not completed before the company entered administration and the employees were made redundant between 14 May and 30 June 2020.
The tribunal held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded and made a protective award for the Warehouse Operatives and Warehouse Supervisors at the Heywood site. It recorded that a protective award is a sanction rather than compensation and began from the maximum 90-day period, but reduced that period because the respondent had kept employees informed, had started the representative election process, and the delay in that process was treated as a mitigating factor. The tribunal considered that the claimant union represented only a small proportion of the workforce that needed to be consulted.
The protected period was set at 70 days beginning on 14 May 2020. The judgment does not state a single overall monetary total for the award, only that remuneration is due for that protected period and that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award for failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Susie Radin Limited v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
- The Bakers’ Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366
- In re Hartlebury Printers Ltd and others (in liquidation) [1992] ICR 559
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.