Case 2414556/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sharon Charnock v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414556/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sharon Charnock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a response, and the Tribunal considered it possible to determine the claims without a hearing on the information before the Judge.
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory collective consultation obligations under Section 188 of TULRCA 1992 before proposed redundancy dismissals took effect at its Preston establishment. It made a protective award for the claimant of 90 days' remuneration beginning on 25 September 2019, subject to the recoupment provisions for Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support.
The Tribunal also found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages, dismissed her in breach of contract in respect of notice, and breached her contract by failing to pay expenses incurred. It awarded £2,622.94 for wages, £2,975 for notice damages, and £248.07 for expenses.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for failure to consult under Section 188 TULRCA 1992 was well founded. The Tribunal made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration from 25 September 2019, but no monetary figure for the protective award is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £2,622.94 for unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,623 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,975 damages. | Upheld | — | £2,975 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses incurred and was ordered to pay £248.07 damages. | Upheld | — | £248 |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) of the 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.