Case 3202342/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Flowers Mr T Harding Ms J Parsons v Match2 Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202342/2020
- Decision date
- 4 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Rowe, Ms J Houzer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Flowers Mr T Harding Ms J Parsons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal consolidated three claims brought by Mr J Flowers, Mr T Harding and Ms J Parsons against STA Travel Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation), with the Secretary of State for BEIS joined in Mr Flowers' case as statutory guarantor. The claims were for protective awards under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, based on an alleged failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in section 188. The First Respondent presented no response and did not attend or represent itself; the Secretary of State provided written submissions.
The Tribunal held that the claims of Mr Harding and Ms Parsons had been presented out of time, but it was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for them to present within the original time limit and that it was reasonable for Mr Harding to present his claim by 4 February 2021 and for Ms Parsons to present hers by 15 February 2021. It found that all three Claimants were employees of the First Respondent and were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 2 September 2020. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimants, together with the First Respondent's other salaried employees, were employed at a single establishment where 20 or more dismissals as redundant were proposed within 90 days or less.
The Tribunal found that the First Respondent had completely failed to comply with section 188. It ordered a protective award in respect of all three Claimants, with a protected period of 90 days beginning on 2 September 2020 and ending on 1 December 2020. It found no mitigating factors justifying any reduction from the maximum period. The judgment also gives the information required for the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, including the hearing date, tribunal location, employer details, the named employees, and the protected period dates.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Mr J Flowers' protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Secretary of State for BEIS was joined as a respondent under Rule 34. The tribunal made a protective award for a 90-day protected period but did not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr T Harding's protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit and that presentation within the further period up to 4 February 2021 was reasonable. The tribunal made a protective award for a 90-day protected period but did not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Ms J Parsons' protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit and that presentation within the further period up to 15 February 2021 was reasonable. The tribunal made a protective award for a 90-day protected period but did not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 34 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 195 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.