Case 4100835/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Donachie & others as per attached schedule v Watt Brothers (Glasgow And Edinburgh) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100835/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Donachie & others as per attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which no response had been presented. Employment Judge L Wiseman decided the case on the available material and found the claim well founded. The tribunal held that the respondent was under a duty to consult about dismissals under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and failed to do so.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of all employees made redundant by the respondent and listed on the attached schedule, where consultation had not taken place. The judgment states that the protected period began on 16 December and lasted for 90 days. No monetary sum for the award is stated in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claim well founded because the respondent was under a duty to consult about dismissals under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and failed to do so. A protective award was made for employees listed on the attached schedule, with the protected period beginning on 16 December for 90 days. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.