Case 2203219/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Thompson-Burn v v Warehouse Fashions Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2203219/2020
Decision date: 21 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs A Thompson-Burn v

Respondent

Warehouse Fashions Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent stated that it did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing on the information before it.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimant under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

The tribunal held that the complaint was well-founded and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The claimant's other claims were left to be decided at a later hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The judgment upheld a complaint of failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award. The award is expressed as 90 days' remuneration, not a fixed monetary figure.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The judgment states that the claimant's other claims will be determined at a later hearing, but does not adjudicate or identify them in this decision.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.