Case 3311461/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lisiewicz v Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration) v — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311461/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lisiewicz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Lisiewicz, brought a claim arising from the respondent's failure to comply with collective consultation requirements. The respondent, Oasis and Warehouse Limited (in administration), had gone into administration on 15 April 2020. In its ET3 and grounds of resistance dated 27 September 2021, the administrators consented to the claim proceeding, and the respondent did not contest the claim for a protective award. The tribunal therefore issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing.
On the information before the tribunal, the respondent had proposed 45 redundancies at its Stanton Harcourt site. The tribunal found that the respondent did not fully inform and consult with the claimant in accordance with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there was no proper warning or consultation and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed for consultation as required by section 188A, so the respondent was in breach of section 188.
The tribunal awarded a protective award under section 189 in favour of the claimant for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The judgment also records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply, and directs the respondent to provide the specified recoupment information to the Secretary of State within 10 days of promulgation. The decision does not state a separate monetary amount for the claimant's award in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for breach of collective consultation duties under section 188. The respondent did not contest the claim. The tribunal found that the respondent proposed 45 redundancies at its Stanton Harcourt site, did not fully inform and consult, and that no employee representatives were elected or appointed as required by section 188A. A protective award was made for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020, but the judgment does not state a monetary figure for the claimant's award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189(3) 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.