Case 3307971/2023 · Employment Tribunal
The claimants named in the Schedule 1 (“the Claimants”) v Robinson Manufacturing Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307971/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
3 namedClaimant
The claimants named in the Schedule 1 (“the Claimants”)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal converted the case management hearing to a final hearing and granted a declaration that the Claimants' complaints that Robinson Manufacturing Limited failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were well founded. The case was heard in Cambridge before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone, with Robinson Manufacturing Limited in administration and the Secretary of State for Trade and Business as respondents.
The Tribunal found that each claimant, all of whom were dismissed as redundant on or after 4 May 2023, should receive a protective award for the protected period beginning with the first dismissal date and lasting 90 days, which was the period claimed. It ordered 90 days' remuneration under section 190(2) of the 1992 Act, stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, and made no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award / complaint of failure to comply with s.188 TULRCA 1992; the tribunal ordered 90 days' remuneration under s.190(2) but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.190(2) TULRCA 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.