Case 3312530/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Williams & Others (see attached Schedule) v Roma Leather Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312530/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Williams & Others (see attached Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with a requirement of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and that the claim for a protective award succeeded.
The respondent's administrator confirmed that there were more than 20 employees at the Naseby establishment. The claimants brought their claims within the statutory time limit, were employed at the same establishment, and were made redundant on or after 9 June 2023. There was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives, and 20 or more employees were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy on or within 90 days of 9 June 2023.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed during that period without any consultation having taken place. As the respondent had not filed a response, the Tribunal considered it disproportionate to convene a hearing. It made a protective award for a protected period beginning on 9 June 2023 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so classified as other. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- protective awards are punitive and should be for the maximum period unless there are circumstances making it just not to do so
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.