Case 4101084/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hume & others v Andrew P.Orr (Decorators) Limited (In Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 4101084/2025
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hume & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 22 judgment on the available material. The respondent, which was in compulsory liquidation, did not contest the claim, and permission for the proceedings to continue had been granted by the relevant court on 12 August 2025. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and the claimant had been dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal found the complaints under s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded. It found that the respondent had dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, had failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with s.188A, and had then failed to consult with them in accordance with s.188. It made a protective award for employees based at Suite 33, Atruim Business Centre, North Caldeen Road, Coatbridge, ML5 4EF.
The protected period was stated to begin on 3 April 2025 and to last 90 days. The judgment ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for that protected period, but the extracted text does not specify a monetary figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award / collective redundancy consultation complaint under s.188 and s.188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the respondent failed to elect employee representatives and consult them after proposing redundancies of more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less. The extracted text does not state a monetary total. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A 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.