Case 4100062/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S McCallum (and others per attached schedule) v Barrochan Limited (Dissolved) — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100062/2021
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S McCallum (and others per attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided the case on the available material under rule 21 because no response was presented. It noted that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation, and that the relevant court had granted permission for the proceedings to continue. The claimants were employees dismissed as redundant, and the judgment concerned the failure to comply with the collective consultation requirements in sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. It also found that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188. On that basis, the complaint was held to be well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of employees dismissed as redundant at the respondent’s establishment at Unit 3, Imperial Park, West Avenue, Linwood, PA32FB. The protected period was stated to begin on 10 September 2020 and to last for 90 days. The extracted text does not give a monetary figure for the award, only that remuneration was ordered for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered payment of remuneration for the protected period, but the extracted text does not specify a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 TULR(C)A 1992
- section 188A TULR(C)A 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.