Case 3306086/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs A Grysiewicz and others (see schedule) v Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3306086/2020
Decision date: 20 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs A Grysiewicz and others (see schedule)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent did not contest the claimants' claims for a protective award, and the tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing. The tribunal found the complaints of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well-founded.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 45 redundancies at its Stanton Harcourt site and did not fully inform and consult with the claimants as required. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

The tribunal ordered a protective award under section 189(3), requiring payment to each claimant equivalent to remuneration for 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The judgment states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so this is classified as other.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.