Case 3306705/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Multi York Furniture Ltd (In Administration) and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306705/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
4 namedClaimant
In Person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the Respondent failed to comply with the collective consultation requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It granted a declaration that the Claimant’s complaint was well founded.
The Tribunal found that there should be a protected award for the affected employees at all affected sites of the Respondent who were dismissed as redundant in November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019. It stated that the protected period began with the date of the Claimant’s dismissal and lasted for 90 days.
The judgment records that remuneration was payable for a period of 90 days pursuant to section 190(2) of the same Act, and says the Claimant is awarded 90 days pay. No further monetary figure is set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The Tribunal declared the complaint under section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 well founded and found that a protected award should be paid to affected employees at all affected sites. The judgment awards 90 days pay under section 190(2), but no monetary sum is specified in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.190(2) Trade Union and 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.