Case 2403615/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Garvey and others (see Schedule) v T.W. Parker (Paper) Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403615/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss S Garvey and others (see Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. It found that the complaints seeking a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded.
The Tribunal found that the first respondent failed in its duty to consult the claimants under section 188 of that Act. It ordered the first respondent to pay each claimant listed in the schedule remuneration for a protected period of 90 days starting on 11 April 2022, the date the first dismissals took effect.
The judgment stated that the recoupment regulations apply and included the standard annex explaining the respondent's duties to provide information to the Secretary of State and the operation of any recoupment notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaints sought a protective award under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to consult under section 188. The taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.