Mr Uddin and Ms Bedborough For the v Respondent — 2022

Twenty-one claimants employed by J. Crew UK Ltd sought a protective award after their employment was ended with effect from 9 September 2020. The tribunal noted that the claims had originally included other amounts, but at the hearing only a protective award was pursued. There was no recognised trade union and no elected employee representatives, so the section 188 consultation obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were in issue if 20 or more dismissals were proposed at one establishment within 90 days.

The tribunal heard evidence from Ms Bedborough and Mr Uddin and accepted witness statements from Mr Blower, Ms Urban and Ms Khanom. It considered the meaning of "establishment" by reference to USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors 2015 ICR 675, commonly referred to as the Woolworths case. The evidence showed that the UK stores were all in central London, close to each other, with staff moving between stores, shared systems for hours and stock, and centralised control from the United States over stock ordering, distribution, accounting, merchandising, launches and promotions.

The tribunal held that the smaller stores were not separate establishments and that the London stores were operated as a single establishment. It therefore declared that the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 and made a protective award of 90 days' pay to the claimants listed in the schedule, payable for the protected period beginning on 9 September 2020. The annex noted that the Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support Regulations 1996 may apply to the award.