Case 2415774/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cleworth v Nationwide Crash Repair Centres Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415774/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Cleworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined the matter on the papers without attendance by any party. It found that the claimant had been employed at the Waggon Road, Mossley, Tameside establishment and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 4 September 2020.
The Tribunal found that the respondents did not fully inform and consult with the claimant and other employees in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant brought an individual complaint under section 189 of the Act because there were no relevant employee representatives.
The Tribunal did not make the proposed consent order because some claimants appeared to have worked at smaller establishments where the statutory threshold might not have been met, and because proposed terms about ranking in the administration were not matters for the Tribunal. For Mr Cleworth, the Tribunal was satisfied that at least 20 redundancies were proposed at the Waggon Road site, and made a protective award of 90 days beginning on 4 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment awards remuneration for a protected period of 90 days but does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675
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.