Case 4101560/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Scotland v Represented by: Ms S Ismail - Counsel Engenda Group Limited — 2023

Case reference: 4101560/2022
Decision date: 20 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge L Doherty GMB
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Scotland

Respondent

Represented by: Ms S Ismail - Counsel Engenda Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing concerned the protective-award element of conjoined claims by Unite and GMB arising from redundancies at Engenda Group Ltd’s Grangemouth turnaround project. The tribunal accepted that more than 20 employees were dismissed as redundant and that the unions were recognised for consultation purposes. It also accepted that the respondent sent an HR1 form and section 188 letter on 26 October 2021, and that the project was then affected by industrial action and two descopes by the client.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Complaint by Unite under section 189 TULRCA. The tribunal held the complaint well founded, found a failure to consult about the redundancy selection criteria, and made a protective award with a protected period of 30 days beginning on 26 November 2021. The judgment text refers in the remedy section to 26 November 2026, which is plainly inconsistent with the rest of the decision and appears to be a typographical error.	Upheld	—	—
Trade union	Complaint by GMB under section 189 TULRCA. The tribunal held the complaint well founded, found that there had been no consultation with GMB at all, and made a protective award with a protected period of 40 days beginning on 26 November 2021. The judgment text refers in the remedy section to 26 November 2026, which is plainly inconsistent with the rest of the decision and appears to be a typographical error.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.