Case 3307969/2023 · Employment Tribunal
The claimants named in the Schedule 1 (“the Claimants”) v Robinson Manufacturing Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307969/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings The
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
The claimants named in the Schedule 1 (“the Claimants”)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was converted from a case management hearing to a final hearing under Rule 48 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. With the consent of the administrators of the First Respondent, and having considered the written submissions of the Second Respondent, the Tribunal dealt with the Claimants' complaints under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal granted a declaration that the Claimants' complaints that Robinson Manufacturing Limited failed to comply with section 188 were well founded. It found that there should be a protective award paid to each of the Claimants, who were dismissed as redundant on or after 4 May 2023.
The protected period was fixed to begin with the date of the first dismissal, 4 May 2023, and to last for 90 days, which was the period claimed by the Claimants. The Tribunal recorded that each of the Claimants was to be paid remuneration for that 90-day period pursuant to section 190(2) of the 1992 Act.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to the award, with the protected period beginning on 4 May 2023. No order was made as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The Tribunal granted a declaration that the Claimants' complaints that the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded and awarded a protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
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.