Case 3213289/2020 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Mr M. Bugler (2) Ms I. Gadek (3) Ms M. Wojewoda (4) Ms J. Walo (5) Ms J. Giefert (6) Mrs K. Czerwinska v Hotel Assist Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 3213289/2020
Decision date: 20 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Massarella Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

(1) Mr M. Bugler (2) Ms I. Gadek (3) Ms M. Wojewoda (4) Ms J. Walo (5) Ms J. Giefert (6) Mrs K. Czerwinska

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination for all six Claimants was 5 August 2020.

It found that the First Respondent breached its obligations under ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to the duty to consult employee representatives about a proposal to dismiss as redundant more than 20 employees within one establishment.

The Claimants were held entitled to a protective award. The Tribunal decided it was just and equitable for the First Respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of 90 days, from 5 August 2020 to 3 November 2020, but the judgment did not state a monetary total.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim arising from alleged breach of collective redundancy consultation obligations under ss.188 and 188A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no separate protective award enum is available.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.