Mr J Reilly v Malin Industrial Concrete Floors (in administration) — 2023

Mr J Reilly worked for Malin Industrial Concrete Floors as a person responsible for after care works from 4 April 2015 until his dismissal on 31 January 2023. The Tribunal recorded that he had been told shortly before dismissal to pay for his own accommodation in London, not to take his van to the usual car hire business, and that his fuel card was no longer valid. He was also told that the respondent had financial difficulties said to be temporary and that there was no risk of redundancies.

The claimant withdrew his redundancy payment complaint after recovering a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service, and that complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claim was for a protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal noted that there was no recognised trade union, no employee representatives had been appointed, and the administrators had confirmed that the respondent proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's asserted special circumstances defence under section 188(7). It found that no further evidence had been provided to support the defence and did not accept that the insolvency and lack of funds amounted to uncommon or exceptional circumstances that would make compliance with the consultation duties inconsistent with the statutory purpose. Applying the principles in Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & ors [2004] ICR 893, the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to award 30 days' pay and ordered payment of £3,000 based on a gross weekly wage of £700.