Case 2200386/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Unite the Union v Arjowiggins Chartham Mill Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200386/2023
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Unite the Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal proceeded before Employment Judge Nicklin sitting alone after neither respondent contested the claim or attended. It found that Unite the Union was recognised by the First Respondent for consultation purposes in relation to redundancies and the consultation obligations under section 188 of TULRCA 1992.
The Tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with those section 188 consultation obligations in respect of redundancy dismissals affecting the class of employees represented by the Claimant as members as at 22 September 2022. The complaint for a protective award was well-founded and succeeded.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay remuneration by way of a protective award to the class of employees identified in the schedule to the judgment. The protective award was for 90 days commencing on 22 September 2022, the date on which the first dismissal to which the complaint related took effect.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint for a protective award under section 188 of TULRCA 1992 in respect of redundancy dismissals. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of TULRCA 1992
- section 4(2) and (3)(g) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.