Mr A Mersh and others v Architectural Glass and Aluminium Limited (in administration) — 2025

These linked claims were brought by Mr A Mersh and others against Architectural Glass and Aluminium Limited (in administration) under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, alleging failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in s.188 before redundancy dismissals. The respondent did not present a valid response, the administrators consented to the claims continuing, and the tribunal determined the matter on the available material under rule 22.

Judge Jeram found that, as at 5 April 2024, the respondent was proposing to dismiss as redundant within a period of 90 days or less 20 or more employees assigned to the site at Unit 2, Jade Business Park, Spring Road, Murton, County Durham. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimants were employees who may be affected by those dismissals, that the site was an establishment or part of an establishment for s.188 purposes, and that the respondent was required to consult appropriate representatives of affected employees. It also found that the claimants were not employees for whom an independent trade union was recognised, that there were no elected employee representatives, and that the respondent did not invite the affected employees to elect representatives.

The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to comply with s.188, had not shown special circumstances making compliance not reasonably practicable, and that each complaint was presented within the statutory time limit. The complaints under s.189 were therefore well founded. In fixing the protected period, the tribunal had regard to the seriousness of the default and to GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 180. It held that there had been no consultation at all and no mitigating circumstances, so it was just and equitable to make a maximum protective award of 90 days beginning on 5 April 2024, payable by way of remuneration to affected employees.