Case 3202390/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alan Cairns v Roalco Ltd (In Administration) DEFAULT — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202390/2019
- Decision date
- 28 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alan Cairns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Alan Cairns, brought a claim that Roalco Ltd (In Administration) had failed to inform and consult in respect of collective redundancies contrary to section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent did not enter a response, and the tribunal entered judgment in the claimant's favour under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was employed by the respondent and was entitled to a declaration because the respondent failed to inform or consult him about more than 20 redundancies at the workplace within a 90-day period. The claim was for a protective award under the 1992 Act.
No reason was advanced to mitigate the protective award period. The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to award the maximum period of 90 days, with the protected period beginning on 19 July 2019. The extracted text does not state a monetary figure for the award, only the length of the protective award period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim was for failure to inform and consult in respect of collective redundancies contrary to s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with a protective award sought. The extracted text records a 90-day protective award period but does not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- just and equitable
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.