Case 2602992/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Badger and others – see schedule v Field and Civil Engineering Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602992/2022
- Decision date
- 2 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
- Venue
- Considered
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Badger and others – see schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the matter on the papers. The first respondent had not presented a response, was barred from taking part in the proceedings, and had presented no evidence of mitigating circumstances. The second respondent neither admitted nor denied the claims and required proof.
The Tribunal found that 32 claimants worked at a single establishment and were summarily dismissed as redundant on 10 November 2022. It found that more than 20 employees were dismissed at that establishment on that date, the claims were presented in time, and the first respondent did not consult or seek to consult with a recognised trade union or arrange for employee representatives.
The Tribunal concluded that each claimant was entitled to a protective award and that there were no circumstances mitigating the failure to consult. It ordered the first respondent to pay each claimant a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration beginning on the dismissal date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld complaints under TULRCA section 189 for failure to comply with section 188 consultation requirements and ordered a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration for each claimant; no monetary amount was stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- TULRCA sections 188 and 189
- Susie Radin v GMB [1994] ICR 893 CA
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's rules of procedure 2013
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.