Case 3305412/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Oasis and Warehouse Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305412/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a rule 21 application in a case where the respondent, Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration), did not contest the claim for a protective award. The claimants had been employed by the respondent, which entered administration on 15 April 2020, and the tribunal recorded that the first dismissals to which the claims related took place on that date. The claims were presented on 9 June 2020.
On the information before it, the tribunal found that the respondent had proposed to make 45 redundancies at its Stanton Harcourt site and had not fully informed and consulted with the claimants in accordance with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there had been no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives had been elected or appointed for consultation as required by section 188A. The tribunal therefore found a breach of the collective consultation duty.
The tribunal made an award under section 189 in favour of the claimants for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. It also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, and directed the respondent to provide the Secretary of State with the information required by Regulation 6 within 10 days of the decision being promulgated, or as soon as reasonably practicable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The respondent did not contest the claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) 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.