Case 2600866/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Cram & others v The Mailshop Mailing Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600866/2024
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs C Cram & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not submit a response to the claims, and the administrator consented to the claims proceeding. The Employment Judge decided the matter on the information before him, including submissions for the claimants, witness statements and submissions by the second respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimants worked at a single establishment with no recognised trade union. It found that the first respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA, so the section 189 complaints were well founded and succeeded.
The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on the date specified for each claimant in the schedule. The judgment stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the awards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld complaints under section 189 TULRCA for failure to arrange election of employee representatives and consult under sections 188 and 188A TULRCA. It ordered remuneration for a 90-day protected period but did not state monetary amounts. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 188 and 188A TULRCA
- section 189 TULRCA
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 - Rule 22
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.