Case 2204525/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mercante v Thomas Cook and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204525/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Mercante
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not present a response to the claim, and the Official Receiver confirmed that the protective award claims would not be contested. The Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing, following permission from the High Court for the claim to proceed despite the first respondent's compulsory liquidation.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent employed over 20 employees at London Aldersgate and that the claimant worked for Thomas Cook Group PLC. The first respondent went into compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019, and the claimant was notified later that day that his employment was terminated with immediate effect.
The Tribunal found there was no proper warning, notice, or consultation with recognised trade unions or with the claimant, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation. It held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 23 September 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188. The judgment awarded remuneration for a 90-day protected period but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 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.