Case 2601996/2019 · Employment Tribunal
GMB v Wilko Retail Limited and 5 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601996/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
Parties
7 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claim against the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. No separate substantive finding is made against those respondents beyond that disposal.
As to the First Respondent, the Tribunal found that it was not disputed that Wilko Retail Limited had failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Tribunal therefore made a declaration that there had been a breach of section 188.
The Tribunal then made a protective award in respect of all staff employed by the First Respondent at its Head Office establishment as at 31 January 2019, where the Claimant had collective bargaining rights and whose employment terminated by reason of redundancy between 31 January 2019 and 12 April 2019. The protected period was fixed at 90 days commencing on 31 January 2019. The judgment does not quantify a monetary sum for the award.
The judgment also notes that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 may apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The First Respondent was found not to have complied with section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the Tribunal made a protective award. The claims against the Second to Sixth Respondents were dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.