Case 4100992/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Tayone Food Ltd (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100992/2019
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Tayone Food Limited (in administration) failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment states that this failure related to the election of employee representatives and to consultation with the individual employees, as required by section 188(4). A protective award was therefore made under section 189 of the 1992 Act.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration to the individual claimants for the protected period, identified as 90 days starting on 22 October 2018. The extracted judgment does not state the monetary amount of that remuneration, so no total sum can be extracted from the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award claim under TULRCA sections 188, 188A and 189. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to comply with the requirements for election of employee representatives and had failed to consult with the individual employees. The judgment orders payment of remuneration to the individual claimants for the protected period of 90 days starting on 22 October 2018, but no monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 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.