Mr Markham and others (see attached schedule) v Entec Design Services Limited (in Administration) — 2023

The tribunal considered an uncontested rule 21 judgment arising from claims by Mr Markham and 12 former colleagues. The claimants relied on section 189(1)(d) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, saying Entec Design Services Ltd had failed to comply with its collective consultation obligations before making redundancies. The respondent did not file a response, and the Secretary of State, added as an interested party, neither supported nor resisted the claims.

On the evidence provided in witness statements, the tribunal found that all 13 claimants, and the other employees at the site, were dismissed as redundant on 03 August 2022. In total there were 21 employees at the Respondent's Preston Farm Industrial Estate premises, and the tribunal found that this was a single establishment for the purposes of section 188. It also found that there was no recognised independent trade union, no employee representatives appointed or elected, and no consultation or provision of information before the redundancies were announced.

Applying sections 188 and 189 TULRCA, and the authorities including Martime Ltd v Nautilus International, Rockfon, Athinaiki Chartopoiia, and Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Others, the tribunal concluded that the collective consultation duty had been breached. It accepted the claimants' unchallenged evidence that there had been zero consultation or information in advance of the redundancies and saw no basis to reduce the award below the maximum period.

The tribunal therefore made a protective award for the claimants whose names appear in the schedule, with the protected period beginning on 03 August 2022 and lasting 90 days. The judgment records an order for remuneration for that protected period, but it does not set out a separate monetary figure in the text supplied.