Ms K Masalaki & Others v 1) Vehicle Conversion Specialists Limited (In Administration) 2)Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2025

The tribunal considered claims for a protective award arising from collective redundancy consultation duties. It found that all claimants were employees of the first respondent and worked at the same site at Staithgate Lane in Bradford, which the tribunal accepted was one establishment. The first respondent employed 146 employees in total, went into administration on 20 November 2023, and dismissed 140 employees by reason of redundancy on 27 November 2023.

On the facts found, there was no consultation with employees, trade union representatives, or any other employee representatives about the redundancies. The first respondent did not recognise any trade union for the affected employees, there were no elected employee representatives in place, and the first respondent did not invite affected employees to elect representatives for consultation. The tribunal also found no circumstances that would make compliance with section 188 not reasonably practicable.

The tribunal therefore held that the claims under section 189 were well founded. It found the default was a complete failure to comply with section 188 and, because the first respondent made no representations against the maximum period, concluded that a protected period of 90 days was just and equitable in all the circumstances. The order was that the first respondent pay remuneration for that 90-day protected period to the employees listed in the schedule.

The hearing was conducted on written statements and Mr Smith's oral evidence. The first respondent did not attend, did not contest the evidence, and accepted the claims were well founded. The second respondent did not oppose the claims but asked the tribunal to consider eligibility and whether the claimants worked at the same establishment; the tribunal expressly resolved that issue in the claimants' favour.