Case 3325165/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Hembling-Baldwin Mr A Layton Mr G Collins Mr G Green Mr K Waters Mr L Cole Mr P Seaman v Mussett Engineering Limited (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3325165/2019
- Decision date
- 26 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Hembling-Baldwin Mr A Layton Mr G Collins Mr G Green Mr K Waters Mr L Cole Mr P Seaman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints by seven claimants against Mussett Engineering Limited (In Administration). It held that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and declared the complaint well founded.
The tribunal found that a protected award should be paid to the affected employees at all affected sites of the respondent who were dismissed as redundant on 26 June 2019. It fixed the protected period as beginning on the date of dismissal and lasting for 90 days.
The award was made under section 190(2) of the 1992 Act. The judgment states that the claimants are to be paid remuneration for the 90-day period and that they are awarded 90 days' pay per affected employee, but it does not set out a monetary figure in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal declared the complaint well founded and ordered a protected award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.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.