Case 3300934/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Sarah Osmik v R National Realisations and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300934/2025
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Sarah Osmik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the claimant’s claim for a protective award succeeded. The judgment was based on the papers, including the claim form and the administrators’ comments.
The tribunal found that there were more than 20 employees at the claimant’s establishment at The Gables, St Marys Road, Hemel Hempstead, and that the claimant presented her claim within the statutory time limit. It also found that the claimant was the elected employee representative at the establishment.
The tribunal found that 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on 29 November 2024, and that the claimant and the other employees were dismissed without any consultation taking place. It concluded that there had been a complete failure to comply with the statutory requirements.
As a result, the tribunal made a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days in respect of employees dismissed as redundant on or after 29 November 2024. The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no monetary sum was stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULRCA 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.