Case 2403932/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dickinson & Others (see attached schedule) v Bonds Precision Castings Ltd (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403932/2020
- Decision date
- 29 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dickinson & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, Bonds Precision Castings Ltd (in administration), did not present a response. The hearing took place remotely, the claimants gave evidence, and the Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to consult the workforce about proposals to dismiss or measures connected with the dismissal of 20 or more employees, contrary to section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. There was no recognised trade union, no elected or appointed employee representatives for consultation, and the dismissals were implemented without proper warning or notice.
The Tribunal accepted that the protective award claims were presented outside the primary time limit in section 189(5)(b) of the 1992 Act, but it applied the approach in Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy. It found that each claimant's ignorance of the protective award claim was reasonable because it is a technical claim not commonly known, and that once they became aware of the possibility they acted promptly. The Tribunal therefore concluded that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims within the initial period and that they were brought within a reasonable further period.
The Tribunal made protective awards in favour of the claimants named in the schedule for the maximum protected period of 90 days commencing on 27 December 2019. It also noted that the awards were subject to the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, and that no financial quantification was made in this judgment because any payment issue would be dealt with separately under section 192 of the 1992 Act.
Mr C Rutter also pursued a breach of contract claim for notice. The Tribunal held that the claim was out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented it in time. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the claimants named in the attached schedule. The Tribunal made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 December 2019, but no monetary sum was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr C Rutter's claim for breach of contract in respect of notice was presented outside the three-month time limit in Article 7 of the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The Tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189(5)(b) TULRCA 1992 not reasonably practicable test
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490
- section 188 TULRCA 1992 collective consultation duty
- Article 7 Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.