Case 4100240/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Centre for the Moving Image (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100240/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 21. The respondent presented no response within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 26 January 2023. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because none of the situations in s.189(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied and the claimant was an employee dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal found the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 of the 1992 Act was well founded. It found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, and that it failed to carry out any consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees in accordance with s.188. The tribunal therefore made a protective award in respect of each claimant.
The protected period was fixed as 90 days and began on 6 October 2022. The judgment records that the respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period, but it does not set out any separate monetary figure in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint under s.188 TULRCA 1992 about failure to consult in a redundancy exercise; the tribunal made a protective award in respect of each claimant for a 90-day protected period beginning 6 October 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
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.