Case 4100203/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R E Gilchrist v The Adventure Trust SCIO — 2024

Case reference: 4100203/2023
Decision date: 28 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge F Eccles

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R E Gilchrist

Respondent

The Adventure Trust SCIO

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge F Eccles issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material. The claimant was found entitled to bring the complaint because it concerned a failure relating to the consultation and election of employee representatives, and the claimant had been dismissed as redundant. No response was presented within the applicable time limit.

The Tribunal found that the complaint under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It found that the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, had failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A, and had then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.

A protective award was made in respect of employees dismissed as redundant at The Adventure Trust SCIO, XSITE, King’s Inch Road, Braehead, Renfrewshire, PA4 8XG. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period, which was stated to begin on 15 November 2022 and run for 90 days. The judgment does not set out a monetary figure for the award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award under TULRCA ss.188 and 188A. The judgment does not quantify a monetary amount; it orders remuneration for the protected period.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.