Case 2302869/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr John Skupski v Redeem UK Limited (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302869/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sekhon Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr John Skupski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and considered supporting documents including his employment contract and emails from 3 July 2020 and 7 July 2020. The claimant worked at the Macclesfield branch of a company that refurbished, processed and resold mobile phones, and the tribunal recorded that there was no recognised trade union for collective bargaining, consultation or negotiation at that branch.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been placed on furlough on 4 April 2020, then informed on 3 July 2020 that the UK business would be placed into administration and the UK offices would close. He was invited to a meeting on 7 July 2020 with other employees at the Macclesfield branch and was dismissed with immediate effect. The tribunal found there had been no consultation with the claimant, no proper warning or notice to the workforce, and no employee representatives elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the 1992 Act.
On the evidence, the tribunal was satisfied that more than 20 employees were made redundant at the Macclesfield branch, so it did not need to decide whether the separate sites at Macclesfield, Bathgate and Scotland should be treated as one establishment for the purposes of the legislation. It held that the respondent was in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and that the claimant's complaint under section 189 was well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award under section 189(3) equivalent to remuneration for 45 days beginning on 7 July 2020. It made no financial award at the hearing stage, noting that the claimant would need to seek payment of the individual award separately and that any dispute about amount would be the subject of a further claim under section 192. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were stated to apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Failure to comply with the collective redundancy consultation obligation under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant sought a protective award equivalent to 45 days' remuneration. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 TULRA 1992
- s.189 TULRA 1992
- s.189(3) TULRA 1992
- s.192 TULRA 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.