Case 2404673/2022 · Employment Tribunal
GMB Trade Union v DMI Young & Cunningham Limited (In administration) C/O Kroll Advisory Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404673/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
GMB Trade Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, and the tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment. It found that DMI Young & Cunningham Limited (in administration) failed to inform and consult GMB Trade Union, described in the judgment as the appropriate representative for employees of a description in respect of which GMB was recognised, in breach of ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal made an award under s.189 of the 1992 Act in favour of GMB Trade Union. The award required the respondent to pay remuneration to the employees named in the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days commencing on 28 February 2022.
The judgment also states that the recoupment regulations apply to the award. The annex explains the recoupment information requirements and the operation of any Recoupment Notice, but the extracted judgment text does not state a single lump-sum monetary figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent failed to inform and consult GMB Trade Union as the appropriate representative for affected employees in breach of ss.188 and 188A TULRCA 1992 and made a s.189 protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.