Case 2602645/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v Timber Stair Manufacturers Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602645/2023
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined on the papers with the parties' consent under Rule 21 after the first Respondent failed to submit a response. The tribunal considered the claim form and submissions made by the Claimant and 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 failed to consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA.
The tribunal held that the complaints under TULRCA section 189 were well founded and succeeded. The first Respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to the Claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 12 August 2023, with the recoupment regulations applying to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under TULRCA section 189 arising from alleged failure to elect and consult employee representatives under sections 188 and 188A. The taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 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
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) 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.