Case 2408990/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Baxter v Shearings Ltd (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408990/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 on the information before it. The claimant claimed a protective award for breach of collective consultation requirements.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was told by telephone conference on 22 May 2020 that he was redundant with immediate effect, with no consultation. It also found that the respondent employed more than 20 employees and that nearly all were made redundant on or around the same date, with no proper warning, notice, or consultation with the workforce.
The Tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 22 May 2020. The judgment states that no financial award was made at this stage and that any payment or dispute about the amount would need to be dealt with separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment states that no financial award was made at this stage; entitlement was for a 90-day protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Rule 21
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) 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.