Ms Christina Douglas v Redeem UK Limited (In Administration) — 2021

At the start of the hearing, Ms Douglas confirmed that, despite a reference to discrimination in the claim form, she was not applying to amend and was proceeding only with the failure to comply with the collective redundancy consultation obligation under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Redeem UK Limited did not present a response and did not attend. The tribunal heard Ms Douglas's evidence and considered a payslip dated 31 January 2020, an email from Paul Egan dated 3 July 2020, and emails with KPMG.

The tribunal found that the respondent carried out business in Bathgate, Macclesfield and Scotland, that Ms Douglas worked at the Bathgate branch, and that she was placed on furlough in April 2020. It accepted that she was told by email on 3 July 2020 that the UK business would enter administration and that the UK offices would close, was invited to a telephone meeting on 7 July 2020, and was dismissed with immediate effect without consultation. The tribunal also found that the Bathgate branch had more than 20 employees affected by the dismissals, that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation, and that there had been no proper warning or notice to the workforce.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of section 188 and that the complaint under section 189 was well founded. It made a protective award equivalent to remuneration for 45 days beginning on 7 July 2020, but stated that no financial award was being made at that stage and that Ms Douglas would need to seek payment of her individual award separately. The judgment also said that any dispute about payment would be for a further claim under section 192, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied.