Case 2400687/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss C Howard (2) Mrs L Bushell (3) Miss J Barr v A1 Nursing and Homecare Agency (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400687/2020
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss C Howard (2) Mrs L Bushell (3) Miss J Barr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent was in creditors voluntary liquidation and did not present a response, so the tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment on the papers. It found that the respondent employed over 20 employees at its head office, no trade union was recognised, and on 28 October 2019 the workforce was told the business was closing and that they were being made redundant immediately. The tribunal found there had been no proper warning or consultation and no elected or appointed employee representatives under section 188A, so the collective consultation duty under sections 188 and 189 of the 1992 Act was breached and a 90-day protective award was made from 28 October 2019 for the first and second claimants.
On wages, the tribunal accepted the periods and figures set out in the claims. The first claimant was entitled to gross wages of £2,476.08 for 29 September 2019 to 27 October 2019 but received £1,799.52, leaving an unlawful deduction of £676.56. The second claimant was entitled to £2,258 and received £1,071, leaving £1,187. The third claimant was entitled to £2,006.76 and received £1,872.40, leaving £134.36. Each of those deductions was found to be unlawful under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that the first and second claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy. Applying section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the 2019 weekly cap of £525, it awarded the first claimant £525 and the second claimant £2,100. The judgment also set out the recoupment notice requirements and the standard interest notice, but it did not state a single aggregated monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for breach of section 188 collective consultation duties; the tribunal ordered a 90-day award from 28 October 2019 for the first and second claimants. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant: gross wages due for 29 September 2019 to 27 October 2019 were £2,476.08, payments received were £1,799.52, and the unlawful deduction was £676.56 gross. | Upheld | — | £677 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant: gross wages due for 29 September 2019 to 27 October 2019 were £2,258, payments received were £1,071, and the unlawful deduction was £1,187 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,187 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Third claimant: gross wages due for 29 September 2019 to 27 October 2019 were £2,006.76, payments received were £1,872.40, and the unlawful deduction was £134.36 gross. | Upheld | — | £134 |
| Redundancy | First claimant: dismissed by reason of redundancy; entitled to a redundancy payment of £525 using a weekly rate of £525 under section 162(2)(c) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Redundancy | Second claimant: dismissed by reason of redundancy; entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,100 using a weekly rate of £525 under section 162(2)(b) ERA 1996. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.162(2)(b) and (c) ERA 1996
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.