Ms C Johnson & others (see attached schedule) v Home Fundraising Limited — 2021

The claim was for a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent accepted that it had not complied with the 30-day consultation period, but disputed when redundancies were contemplated, whether there were valid employee representatives, whether special circumstances applied, and how long the protected period should be. The tribunal held that the respondent knew by January 2019 that redundancies would be needed and rejected the suggestion that it could rely on its own delay in obtaining advice.

The tribunal also rejected the respondent's case that Catherine Johnson was an employee representative or that there had been a valid election. It accepted Ms Johnson's evidence that no election took place and that there had been no positive agreement for her to act as representative. Although emails were sent on 1 March and 6 March 2019 and a portal was set up, the tribunal found no evidence of real ongoing consultation beyond the bare minimum, and noted that Ian Dyson was named on the administrators' paperwork but no evidence was given about any consultation with him. It found no special circumstances within section 188(7); insolvency and financial difficulty by themselves were not enough.

Applying the statutory test in section 189 and the authorities cited, including Akavan, Junk, Susie Radin and Barnet v Unison, the tribunal found that there had been a genuine attempt to consult in the limited time available, together with the complication of a possible sale, but that this did not remove liability. It awarded a protective award for 30 days rather than the full 90 days, with the protected period beginning on 12 March 2019. The judgment does not state a cash total because the underlying remuneration figure was not set out.