Case 3312469/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Roberts v Nationwide Accident Repair Services Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312469/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Roberts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the matter on the papers with no attendance by any party. The claimant had been employed at the respondent's Cheltenham establishment and was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 4 September 2020 along with others.
The tribunal found that the first respondent did not fully inform and consult employees in accordance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claimant brought an individual complaint under section 189 seeking a protective award, there being no relevant employee representatives.
Although the administrators had proposed a wider consent order, the tribunal declined to make it because some employees appeared to have worked at smaller establishments where the statutory threshold might not have been met, and because the proposed terms about ranking in the administration were not matters for the tribunal. The tribunal was satisfied that Cheltenham was an establishment at which 20 or more redundancies were proposed, and made a 90-day protective award for the claimant beginning on 4 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment awarded 90 days' remuneration but did not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- USDAW and anor v Ethel Austin Ltd and ors [2015] ICR 675
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.