Case 2603090/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Ayres and 14 others v Clements Limited (in Administration) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603090/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms C Ayres and 14 others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants withdrew all claims except their claims for a protective award. The first respondent did not file a response, evidence or submissions, and the second respondent neither admitted nor denied the claim but required proof.
The tribunal found that the claimants worked at a single establishment and that at least 20 employees there were proposed for dismissal by reason of redundancy. The dismissals were implemented in two tranches, on 21 September 2022 and 4 November 2022, as part of the same redundancy process.
The tribunal found that there was no recognised trade union, that the first respondent failed to organise the election of employee representatives, and that there was no consultation with the claimants or other employees. It concluded that the TULCRA sections 188 to 189 consultation scheme applied, that the first respondent failed to comply with it, and that there were no mitigating circumstances. A protective award of 90 days' remuneration was made for the relevant claimants from their dismissal dates.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under TULCRA sections 188 and 189. The tribunal ordered remuneration for 90 days, but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claimants withdrew all claims other than the protective award claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimants withdrew all claims other than the protective award claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimants withdrew all claims other than the protective award claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimants withdrew all claims other than the protective award claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the claimants withdrew all claims other than the protective award claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- TULCRA sections 188 and 189
- Independent Insurance Co Ltd v Aspinall [2011] IRLR 716 EAT
- Susie Radin v GMB [1994] ICR 893 CA
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.