Case 2402631/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Halton Borough Transport Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402631/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Brian Stevenson, was employed by the first respondent from 4 October 1997 until 25 January 2020, latterly as Director of Operations. The respondents did not present a response or attend the hearing. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant by remote CVP hearing and found that he had been dismissed with immediate effect on 25 January 2020 after the first respondent had been placed into administration on 23 January 2020.
The tribunal found that the first respondent employed approximately 150 employees at the establishment and that all were dismissed on, or shortly after, the same date. Although there was a recognised trade union for collective bargaining and consultation with other parts of the workforce, the claimant as Operations Director was not included within the recognised bargaining unit. There was no consultation with him, no proper warning or notice, and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation under section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
On those facts, the tribunal held that the first respondent was in breach of section 188 of the 1992 Act. It made a protective award under section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 January 2020. The tribunal also noted the recoupment provisions in the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996.
The judgment records that a protective award is a two-stage process and that, at this stage, the tribunal made no financial award. The claimant must seek payment of the individual award and any dispute about payment or amount would fall to be dealt with separately under section 192 of the 1992 Act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for breach of the collective consultation duty under section 188 TULRCA 1992; the tribunal did not quantify any monetary award in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 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.