Case 3202050/2020 · Employment Tribunal
National Union of Journalists v NCJ Realisations Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202050/2020
- Decision date
- 19 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Panel members
- Mr L Bowman, Ms M Long
Parties
2 namedClaimant
National Union of Journalists
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNational Union of Journalists brought the claim against NCJ Realisations Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation). The hearing was held remotely on 16 April 2021 before Employment Judge G Tobin with members Mr L Bowman and Ms M Long. The respondent did not attend, and the tribunal dealt with the matter on the basis of the remote hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to consult with the employees’ representatives in breach of its obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On that basis, it made a protective award.
The award was expressed as a sum equivalent to 90 days’ pay for any employee of the respondent as at 23 April 2020 who was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The judgment does not set out a monetary total, only the length of the protective award period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under s188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment does not state a cash sum, only that the award was equivalent to 90 days' pay for qualifying employees. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s188 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.