Case 2203186/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Miss E Dolan-Roberts and others v (trading as Camwal Engineering) — 2022

Case reference: 2203186/2020
Decision date: 3 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss E Dolan-Roberts and others

Respondent

(trading as Camwal Engineering)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent stated that it did not contest the claim for a protective award. Under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal found the claimants' complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to be well-founded without a hearing.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Paul Street London site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimants in accordance with section 188. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required by section 188A. The claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 15 April 2020, and the claim was presented in time on 28 May 2020 after Acas early conciliation from 10 to 15 May 2020.

The tribunal made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were held to apply. The judgment recorded that claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay had also been brought, but that notice of hearing for those claims would be sent separately, so they were not determined in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Protective award claim upheld for failure to comply with section 188 TULRCA 1992. The award was expressed as remuneration for 90 days from 15 April 2020, with no monetary figure stated.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.