Case 2602961/2020 · Employment Tribunal
GMB Union v JDP Frames (In Administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602961/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
3 namedClaimant
GMB Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in chambers with no appearances by the parties, granted a declaration for all claimants listed in the schedule that their complaint was well founded. The complaint was that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Section 188 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal found that a protective award should be paid to the listed claimants. The protected period begins on 8 April 2020, identified as the date of the first dismissals to which the complaint relates, and runs for 90 days.
The judgment states that no financial award is made at this stage. The claimants must seek payment of their individual awards from the respondent, and any failure to pay or dispute about the amount payable would be a separate matter under s192 of the 1992 Act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal granted a declaration that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Section 188 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded, and made a protective award for a 90-day protected period. No financial award was made at this stage. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 188 of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.