Case 2406033/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Burke Mr J Litten Mr C Haworth Mr W Arrowsmith Mr M Smith Mr J Wrigley Mr D McCord v Construction Partnership UK Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406033/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr E Burke Mr J Litten Mr C Haworth Mr W Arrowsmith Mr M Smith Mr J Wrigley Mr D McCord
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by Construction Partnership UK Ltd, which entered administration on 24 April 2020. All claimants were dismissed with immediate effect on 30 April 2020, when around 90 employees based at Chadwick House in Skelmersdale were made redundant. There was no recognised trade union and no existing employee representatives.
The Tribunal found that Mr McCord's claim was presented two days outside the primary time limit. It concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider his complaint.
For the remaining claimants, the Tribunal found that they had standing to bring the complaints because there were no trade union or employee representatives and the employer had failed to arrange elections for employee representatives. The duty to consult under section 188 was triggered because the first respondent proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within 90 days or less. The Tribunal found a complete failure to comply with section 188 and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration from 30 April 2020 for the claimants other than Mr McCord.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 collective consultation requirements, upheld for Mr Burke, Mr Litten, Mr Haworth, Mr Arrowsmith, Mr Smith, and Mr Wrigley. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr McCord's section 189 protective award complaint was presented out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 292A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Hammond v Haigh Castle and Co Ltd 1973 ICR 148
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.