Case 3312339/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the First v Multi York Furniture Ltd (In Administration) and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3312339/2019
- 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 claimant, Mr M Robinson, appeared in person. Neither respondent attended or was represented. Employment Judge Postle heard the case at Norwich on 16 September 2019 and gave judgment orally, with the written record sent on 16 October 2019.
The tribunal granted a declaration that the claimant's complaint that the first respondent had failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It found that a protected award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites of the respondent who were dismissed as redundant in November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019.
The tribunal held that the protected period began with the date of the claimant's dismissal and lasted for 90 days. Under section 190(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the claimant was awarded 90 days' pay. No separate monetary figure was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal declared that the complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded and made a protected award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 188 TULRCA 1992
- Section 190(2) TULRCA 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.