Case 3305200/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Groom v Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305200/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent's premises at Bee House, 140 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire constituted an establishment for the purpose of s188 TULR(C)A. It also found that there was no recognised trade union or appointed or elected employee representatives for the purpose of s188(1B) TULR(C)A.
The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A was upheld, and the Tribunal made a protective award in favour of the claimant. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a 90-day protected period beginning on 28 March 2023 in the sum of £6,801.01.
The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found well-founded, with damages of £1,762.08 calculated using four weeks' net pay. Credit is to be given for any sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay. The claimant's other unpaid wages claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The Tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of s188 TULR(C)A and made a protective award for a 90-day protected period. | Upheld | — | £6,801 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and was found well-founded. Credit is to be given for sums paid by the Redundancy Payments Service in relation to notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,762 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant's other claim for unpaid wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s188 TULR(C)A
- s188(1B) TULR(C)A
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.