Case 3306407/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Golding & Others (see attached schedule) v Bowie Construction Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306407/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs N Golding & Others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimants were employed at the same establishment at Unit 3, The Grip, Linton, Cambridgeshire and were made redundant on 13 March 2024. It found that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives at the establishment, and that 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 13 March 2024.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation having taken place. The claim for a protective award succeeded, and the Tribunal made an award requiring remuneration for a protected period beginning on 13 March 2024 and lasting 90 days. The Recoupment Regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment upheld a claim for a protective award under the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for failure to comply with section 188. It awarded remuneration for a 90-day protected period but did not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189(5)(b) Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.