Case 2501354/2022 · Employment Tribunal
See schedule v Testerworld Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501354/2022
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
See schedule
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants' claims were well founded. The claims concerned the respondent's failure to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of their dismissals.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a protective award under section 189(3) of the 1992 Act. Each claimant was awarded a payment equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 9 May 2022.
The judgment also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the awards, with the protected period in each case being the same 90-day period beginning on 9 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment describes the claims as failures to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and makes a protective award under section 189(3). The award is expressed as remuneration for 90 days for each claimant, not as a fixed monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(3) 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.