Mrs B Patros and others (see Schedule) v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Limited (in administration) and others (see Schedule) — 2021

This was a determination on the papers with no attendance by any party. The tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimants listed in the schedule and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020. It also recorded that there was no order as to costs, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.

The tribunal found that the scheduled claimants were employed by respondent group companies at an establishment at Sutherland Street, Sheffield, and that on 4 September 2020 they were dismissed by reason of redundancy. It held that the respondents did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants had brought individual complaints under s.189 because there were no relevant employee representatives.

By email dated 14 September 2021, the administrators sought a consent order for a 90-day protective award for those claimants who had agreed to its terms. The tribunal declined to accede to the proposed order in full because some claimants appeared to have worked in smaller establishments where there was unlikely to have been a proposal to make 20 or more employees redundant, referring to USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675. It also said the proposed order included ranking terms in the administration of the respondent companies, which was not a matter for the tribunal to determine.

The tribunal was satisfied, however, that Sutherland Street, Sheffield was an establishment at which more than 20 people were proposed to be made redundant. It therefore issued a judgment for a 90-day protective award for the claimants who worked at that establishment and had indicated consent, and also for those who were only pursuing protective award claims but had not expressly indicated agreement to the proposed consent order. The judgment also stated that if any party considered a claimant had been wrongly included in the schedule, an application for reconsideration could be made.