Case 2602394/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McCall and 23 others (see schedule) v Premier Engineering (Lincoln) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602394/2018
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs J M Bonser, Mr M Alibhai
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McCall and 23 others (see schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were employed by Premier Engineering (Lincoln) Limited on a sub-contract at M & W's Siemens site. On 9 July 2018 M & W told the respondent that all of its employees had to leave the site immediately, and the tribunal found that the employees were dismissed with immediate effect on that date. Because the reason was that the respondent had no work for them, the dismissals were held to be by reason of redundancy within s.139(1)(b)(i) ERA 1996.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that GMB or Unite had been recognised. It found that contact with Steve Clarkson and John McIntyre arose only because employees asked them to speak on their behalf about a limited number of draft contract clauses, and that this was not negotiation with a view to reaching agreement. On that basis, the claimants had standing to bring the protective award claims. The tribunal further found that ss.188, 188A and 189 TULRCA 1992 applied, that the respondent had taken none of the consultation steps required, and that no special circumstances defence was made out.
Applying Clarks of Hove, Howlett Marine Services, Shanahan Engineering, Susie Radin, TGWU v Ledbury Preserves and related authorities, the tribunal held that the protected period began on 9 July 2018 and should be 90 days. It found that the respondent could have kept the workforce employed for the three-week period covered by the notice payments it later agreed to make, and that there were no mitigating circumstances justifying any reduction. Each claimant was therefore awarded 90 days' remuneration at £750 per week, recorded in Appendix 3 as £9,675 each.
The holiday pay claims succeeded because the respondent accepted that holiday pay had been miscalculated; the individual awards are set out in Appendix 1. The tribunal also found that none of the claimants had been given a complete s.1 ERA 1996 statement of particulars, and that the incomplete draft contract was not compliant. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002, the tribunal awarded each claimant 4 weeks' pay at the capped weekly rate of £525, producing £2,100 each. Separately, it ordered £196.40 mileage expenses to Mr S Sawyers.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent accepted that holiday pay had been miscalculated. Individual awards are listed in Appendix 1 and vary by claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Protective award under ss.188-189 TULRCA 1992. The protected period was 90 days from 9 July 2018, and Appendix 3 awards each claimant £9,675 at £750 per week. | Upheld | — | £9,675 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of particulars under s.1 ERA 1996. Appendix 2 awards each claimant 4 weeks' pay capped at £525 per week, giving £2,100 per claimant under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.178 TULRCA recognition
- National Union of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades v Albury Brothers Ltd
- s.139(1)(b)(i) ERA redundancy
- s.188/189 TULRCA collective consultation
- Clarks of Hove Ltd v Bakers' Union
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB
- TGWU v Ledbury Preserves (No. 2)
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.