Case 2602641/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr. A Hague & others (2) Mr. P Munckton v Streamline Press Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602641/2022
- Decision date
- 29 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr. A Hague & others (2) Mr. P Munckton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 5 October 2022 when the First Respondent entered administration. They worked at a single establishment with no recognised trade union, and the First Respondent did not enter an ET3 response. The Secretary of State took a neutral position because it had not been party to the process leading to the dismissals.
The tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives and failed to consult in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA. It found there was no consultation whatsoever about the proposed redundancies.
The tribunal held that the complaints under section 189 were well founded and made a protective award for all claimants in the schedule. The protected period was 90 days from 5 October 2022, with no reduction because the tribunal found no mitigating circumstances justifying one.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188, 188A and 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment made no financial award at this stage; it declared entitlement to a protective award for a 90-day protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [2004] IRLR 400
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.