Case 2414416/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Goddard & Others (see attached schedule) First v Second Respondent: Genlec Electrical Contractors Limited (In Administration) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414416/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Goddard & Others (see attached schedule) First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Genlec Electrical Contractors Limited (In Administration) failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimants' claim for a protective award under section 189 of that Act succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered the first respondent to pay the employees named in the attached schedule remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 18 August 2021. The judgment states that the recoupment regulations apply to the award. No monetary figure for the award is given in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal held that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 and ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 18 August 2021, but the judgment text does not quantify individual monetary sums. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 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.