Case 3304143/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Multi York Furniture Ltd (In Administration) and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304143/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
4 namedClaimant
In Person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Multi York Furniture Limited (in administration) had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It therefore declared the claimant's complaint well founded. The written judgment records that the claim was heard in Norwich on 16 September 2019 before Employment Judge Postle, with the claimant appearing in person and neither respondent attending or being represented.
The tribunal held that there should be a protected award paid to affected employees at all affected sites of the respondent who were dismissed as redundant in November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019. It stated that the protected period began with the date of the claimant's dismissal and lasted for 90 days. Under section 190(2) of the 1992 Act, the claimant was awarded 90 days' pay, but the written record does not specify a monetary amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal held that the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded and made a protected award. The written record states that the award was for 90 days' pay under section 190(2), but it does not give a cash figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.190(2) 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.