Case 2203326/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Hearn v v Warehouse Fashions Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203326/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs E Hearn v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award, and the tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing. The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well-founded.
The tribunal found that the first respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimant as required. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.
The tribunal made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The claimant's notice pay claims were not determined in this judgment and were to be addressed separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld a protective award complaint for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of TULRCA 1992. Notice pay claims were not determined and were to be listed separately. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 21
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.