Case 3326066/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Toner, solicitor For the v Written representations — 2019
- Case reference
- 3326066/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Toner, solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant had standing to bring the claim. It found that BSCL Realisations Limited went into administration on 26 June 2019, that around 85 head office employees were dismissed the following day without prior consultation, and that the claimant, who was employed at the head office in Welwyn Garden City, remained employed until 10 September 2019 as part of a reduced team before she was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the First Respondent was under a duty to consult under s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before redundancies, and that the duty extended to employees affected by the redundancies, including the claimant even though she was not dismissed in the first round on 26 June 2019. It found there had been a complete failure of consultation, and it referred to the guidance in GMB v Susie Radin Ltd in reaching that conclusion.
The claim succeeded and the tribunal made a protective award in the claimant's favour. It ordered the First Respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 June 2019, but the extracted text does not state a monetary total for that award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with s.188 TULRCA. The tribunal upheld the complaint and ordered remuneration for the protected period of 90 days beginning on 27 June 2019, but the extracted text does not state a cash total. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA
- GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] IRLR 400
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.