Case 3312650/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Cox & Others (see attached Schedule) v Northolt Glass Company Ltd (In liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312650/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Cox & Others (see attached Schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the 21 claimants appeared to have presented their claims within the statutory time limit. They were employed at the same establishment in Chalfont St Peter and were made redundant on or after 7 July 2022.
The claimants asserted that there was no recognised trade union or elected employee representatives, and that they were dismissed during a period in which 20 or more employees at the establishment were made redundant or placed at risk of redundancy without consultation having taken place. Neither respondent filed a response, and the Tribunal considered that it would be disproportionate to convene a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award requiring the employer to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 7 July 2022 and lasting 90 days, with the Recoupment Regulations applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment states that the first 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 succeeds. The award is remuneration for a 90-day protected period rather than a fixed monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- principle that 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.