Mr J Dalby Respondent (1): PPL Realisations (Leeds) Limited (In Administration) formerly Pharmaceutical Packaging (Leeds) Limited in administration Respondent (2): Secretary of State for Business & Trade Heard at Leeds by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) v Neither the first nor second respondent were present or represented — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent as a flexographic label printer at the Holbeck site and was dismissed for redundancy on 6 July 2023. It found that the first respondent employed at least 20 employees at the claimant’s place of work at the time of dismissal, that the claimant was one of the employees dismissed, and that there were no elected representatives or recognised trade union for consultation purposes.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not consulted before dismissal and was given no written information about it. It therefore found that he was an affected employee and that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of him. The claimant’s complaint under section 189 was well-founded, and he was entitled to a declaration and a protective award.

Applying the approach in Susie Radin Limited v GMB and Others, the tribunal said the starting point for the protected period was 90 days and did not identify any mitigating circumstances to reduce that period. It ordered a protected period of 90 days beginning on 6 July 2023. The claimant’s gross daily rate of remuneration was found to be £71.77 at all material times, and the Recoupment Regulations apply.