Case 2412101/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Melody Ms L Melody Mr C Bailey Mr P Flynn Mr P Goodman Mrs C Bailey v M Igoe Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412101/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E Melody Ms L Melody Mr C Bailey Mr P Flynn Mr P Goodman Mrs C Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent and the claimants consented to the judgment, and the second respondent did not object. The tribunal recorded that the complaints seeking a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded.
The tribunal found that the first respondent failed in its duty to consult the claimants under section 188 of that Act. It ordered the first respondent to pay each claimant remuneration for a protected period of 56 days starting on 27 October 2023, the date the first dismissal took effect, and stated that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment concerns complaints seeking a protective award under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the complaints well-founded and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 56 days, but did not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 64
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.