Case 2602016/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Adamowicz & others (see attached schedule) v Aperture Trading Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602016/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Adamowicz & others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent did not submit a response to the claims, and the administrator gave consent for the claims to proceed. The judgment was made under Rule 21 on the information before the Employment Judge, including claimant submissions, witness statements, and submissions from the second respondent.
The tribunal found that the claimants worked at a single establishment where there was no recognised trade union. It found that the first respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA.
The claimants' complaints under TULRCA section 189 were found to be well founded and succeeded. The first respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each claimant in the attached schedule for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 16 March 2020, and the judgment stated that it did not affect the claimants' remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under TULRCA section 189 for alleged failure to organise election of employee representatives and consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A. The judgment orders remuneration for a protected period but gives no monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
- sections 188 and 188A of Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- TULRCA section 189
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.