Case 3305332/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rutter & others Ms R Bartlett & others Ms S Peacock & others v Multiyork Furniture Limited (‘In Administration’) and 1 other — 2017
- Case reference
- 3305332/2018
- Decision date
- 12 December 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Ms S Stones, Mr B Smith
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Rutter & others Ms R Bartlett & others Ms S Peacock & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent went into administration on 22 November 2017. The tribunal was satisfied that over 100 employees were made redundant, with the first redundancies taking effect on 12 December 2017.
The tribunal found that there were no representatives or elections and no consultation with individual employees. It therefore found the complaint of failure to consult well founded for the employees listed in the attached schedules and declared that the respondent failed to comply with its consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
A protective award was made for employees dismissed as redundant on 12 December 2017 and thereafter, where the employer had failed to comply with section 188. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration to each such employee for a protected period of 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of failure to consult in a collective redundancy situation under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration for affected employees but did not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 188 of the 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.