Case 2304916/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Dillury and others (see schedule) v STA Travel Limited (in liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304916/2020
- Decision date
- 31 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Dillury and others (see schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants sought a protective award following redundancies after STA Travel Limited ceased trading and entered liquidation. The respondent did not appear or provide written representations, and the Tribunal accepted the claimants' unchallenged evidence about how the business operated across branches, head office functions, shared booking systems, centralised processes and pandemic-related home working or furlough arrangements.
The Tribunal identified the issue as whether the relevant employees were assigned to one national establishment or to separate branch establishments for the purposes of s.188 TULRCA. Applying the authorities on the meaning of establishment, it found that each branch was the unit to which the workers were assigned to carry out their duties. Centralised functions, flexibility between branches, common marketing, shared support and temporary pandemic working arrangements did not alter that conclusion.
Save for Mrs Barnett, who appeared to be assigned to a different grouping of employees and whose claim was not dismissed, the claimants with valid claims were assigned to establishments with fewer than 20 employees. The Tribunal therefore held that s.188 TULRCA was not engaged and that the claim for a protective award failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under s.189 TULRCA failed for the claimants whose claims were valid because the Tribunal found fewer than 20 employees were dismissed as redundant at each establishment. The judgment expressly states that Mrs Hayley Barnett's claim was not dismissed and had not failed because it appeared to fall within a different class of employees. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark 1996 ICR 673 ECJ
- Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v Panagiotidis and ors 2007 IRLR 284 ECJ
- USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors 2013 ICR 1300 EAT
- Seahorse Maritime Ltd v Nautilus International 2019 IRLR 286 CA
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.