Case 2501068/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Meddicks v AM Fabrication (Norther) Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501068/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Meddicks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Meddicks had been employed by AM Fabrication (Norther) Ltd for just under 3.5 years. He had been in and out of furlough from March 2020, and from about May/June 2021 until his dismissal he was on furlough. The tribunal found there had been talk of obtaining new contracts, but there had been no warning of imminent redundancies or that the company was to cease trading.
The tribunal found there was no invitation to elect employee representatives and a wholesale failure to provide the information required by section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with no warning and no consultation. It accepted that the pandemic may have contributed to the respondent ceasing to trade, but there was no evidence enabling it to identify the cause. The tribunal said the pandemic did not automatically create special circumstances excusing compliance, and in any event the respondent had taken no steps towards compliance. Relying on Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Others, it held that the appropriate protective award was 90 days.
At remedy, the tribunal recorded the claimant's gross weekly pay as £480 and ordered remuneration for the protected period beginning on 15 July 2021. It also noted that, because the claimant had recovered his notice pay from the Secretary of State, no award was made in respect of the wrongful dismissal/breach of contract complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under section 188 TULRCA. The tribunal fixed the protected period at 90 days from 15 July 2021; gross weekly pay was found to be £480, so the award is calculated from that figure. | Upheld | — | £6,171 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal/breach of contract complaint. The tribunal made no award because the claimant had already recovered his notice pay from the Secretary of State. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,171
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA
- special circumstances
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Others [2004] I.C.R. 893
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.