Case 2600824/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Huthwaite v Gas Container Services Limited (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600824/2021
- Decision date
- 2 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Huthwaite
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Nottingham on 1 September 2021 before Employment Judge Butler sitting alone. The respondent did not submit a response, and the administrator consented to the claim proceeding. The tribunal decided the matter under rule 21 on the evidence produced at the hearing, including the claimant's evidence.
The tribunal found that the claimant worked at a single establishment at which there was no recognised trade union. It also found that the respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaint under section 189 TULCRA was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 9 April 2021. The extracted judgment does not state the amount of remuneration awarded.
The judgment also records that the correct name of the claimant is Matthew Huthwaite.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under section 189 TULCRA was found well founded. The tribunal ordered remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 9 April 2021, but the extracted text does not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 188 and 188A TULCRA
- section 189 TULCRA
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.