Case 2602872/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Graham Gates v PSL 2020 Limited, in administration (formerly Principle Spira Limited) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602872/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Graham Gates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment against the first respondent because it had not responded to the claim. The claimant confirmed that he worked in a non-unionised workforce, that there was no consultation with employee representatives, and that about 75 employees at his establishment were made redundant on 7 May 2020.
The tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to organise the election of employee representatives and consult with them in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA. The claimant's complaint under section 189 was well founded, and the first respondent was ordered to pay a protective award consisting of remuneration for the protected period.
The protected period was set at the maximum of 90 days from 7 May 2020. The tribunal referred to Susie Radin Ltd v GMB as supporting that approach where there has been no consultation, and noted that no mitigating circumstances had been put forward. The proceedings against the second respondent were stayed on the basis that it was assumed to pay the appropriate amount under Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996 if required.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under TULRCA section 189 for failure to consult about proposed redundancies; protected period set at 90 days beginning 7 May 2020. No monetary amount was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules
- sections 188 and 188A TULRCA
- TULRCA section 189
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB [1994] ICR 893
- Part XII Employment Rights Act 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.