Case 2501396/2023 · Employment Tribunal
UNITE The Union v Tolent Construction Limited “In Administration” — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501396/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
UNITE The Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUNITE The Union brought claims for a protective award on behalf of unskilled, skilled and craft employees for whom it was recognised for collective bargaining. The respondent provided construction and facilities management services at Team Valley, Gateshead, Wilton International, and Colton in Leeds, and entered voluntary liquidation on 13 February 2023.
The Tribunal found that in February 2023 the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at each of those sites, with total proposed redundancies in the region of 356, and that the first dismissal took effect on 13 February 2023. It found that there was no proper warning or consultation with the recognised trade union between 9 February 2023 and 13 February 2023, and that no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation within section 188A of the 1992 Act.
The respondent did not file a response, and the liquidator stated that he did not intend to admit or defend any claim. The Tribunal entered judgment without a hearing under Rule 21, finding the section 188 claim well founded and making a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days starting on 13 February 2023. The award applied to eligible unskilled, skilled and craft employees employed at Wilton International, Colton Leeds and Team Valley, Gateshead who were dismissed as redundant on or after that date. The judgment did not state a fixed monetary sum, and recorded that the recoupment regulations applied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no specific monetary figure was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.