Mr Russell Richardson v SE-Tek Ltd (in administration) — 2023

The tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21. The claimant’s complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded because the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 or section 188A. The respondent’s administrator had consented to the claim continuing, and the tribunal decided that the complaint could properly be determined on the available material.

The tribunal found that as at 22 June 2022 the respondent was proposing to dismiss as redundant, within 90 days or less, 20 or more employees assigned to West Quay Road, Sunderland Enterprise Park, Sunderland SR5 2TD. The claimant was an employee who may be affected by the proposed dismissals and was assigned to that site, which the tribunal found was an establishment within the meaning of section 188. The claimant was not covered by a recognised independent trade union and there were no employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees, so he was entitled to present the section 189 complaint.

The complaint was presented within the primary time limit at section 189(5). The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with section 188 and that there was no information suggesting it was not reasonably practicable for the respondent to comply with its consultation obligations. It also found no information that consultation took place in the manner required by section 188(4), and no mitigating circumstances.

Taking into account Susie Radin Ltd v GMB, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to make a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days. The respondent was ordered to pay a protective award under section 189(3) equivalent to remuneration for the period of 90 days beginning on 1 July 2022. The judgment recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the award, but did not state a monetary total.