Case 4100461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
the Union v Attached schedule) Represented by: Ms R Lawson – Solicitor Newman Bonar Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 4100461/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
the Union
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBYL entered administration on 31 March 2023 and sold its yarn manufacturing business as a going concern to the respondent on 19 April 2023. The tribunal found that this was a relevant transfer under regulation 3 of the TUPE 2006 Regulations, and that the first claimant union, which had been recognised by BYL for collective bargaining for all classes of employees, was deemed recognised by the respondent under regulation 6.
On or around 25 October 2023 the respondent told the workforce at St Salvador Street, Dundee, that it would be entering liquidation and dismissed most employees immediately by reason of redundancy, with the dismissals confirmed by letter dated 30 October 2023. The tribunal found that there had been no consultation with the union or with any of the affected employees, no elections had been arranged, and no prior information had been provided. It held that the respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, so section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was engaged.
The first claimant's complaint succeeded and the tribunal made a declaration and a protective award. It held that the first dismissals took effect on 25 October 2023 and, taking account of the respondent's total default and the absence of mitigating circumstances, fixed the protected period at the full 90 days beginning with that date. The second claimants' complaints were dismissed because they did not have title to sue as employees. The tribunal also found that the complaint was presented in time, with the three-month period extended by early conciliation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The first claimant union's complaint under section 188 TULRCA 1992 succeeded. The tribunal made a declaration and a protective award in favour of all employees dismissed as redundant in the protected period, fixed at 90 days from 25 October 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Trade union | The complaints brought by the second claimants were dismissed. The tribunal held they did not have title to sue as employees where the failure related to representatives of a trade union. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Regulation 3 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 6 TUPE 2006
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and Others [2004] IRLR 400
- balance of probabilities
- just and equitable
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.