Case 3203831/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Unite the Union v Norwegian Air Resources UK Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203831/2021
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Panel members
- Ms P Alford, Ms T A Jansen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Unite the Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim against AAP Aviation UK Limited, formerly known as OSM Aviation UK Limited, was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found that Norwegian Air Resources UK Ltd failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Unite the Union's claim for a protective award under section 189 was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal ordered Norwegian Air Resources UK Ltd to pay protective awards in respect of short-haul and long-haul cabin crew based at London Gatwick Airport who were dismissed as redundant and fell within the bargaining unit defined in the relevant Recognition Agreement. The protected period was 63 days from 29 January 2021 for short-haul employees and 90 days from 29 January 2021 for long-haul employees.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations. The award was expressed as remuneration for protected periods, not as a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claim against AAP Aviation UK Limited, formerly known as OSM Aviation UK Limited, was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of 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.