Case 4101859/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Balfour v Arjowiggins Scotland Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101859/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Balfour
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued by Employment Judge M Robison under rule 21 on the available material. The respondent was in administration, and the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 22 March 2023. The response was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) on 4 October 2023, although the respondent had stated an intention to defend the claim.
The tribunal found that Mr S Balfour was entitled to bring the claim because none of the situations in section 189(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied. Although the respondent recognised Unite the Union under a collective agreement for manual workers, the claimant worked as a Financial Controller and was not of a description covered by that recognition or agreement.
The claimant was dismissed as redundant on 16 February 2023 at Stoneywood Mill. The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to dismiss as redundant more than 20 employees at that establishment within 90 days or less, and that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with the consultation requirement in section 188 of the 1992 Act before the first dismissal took effect was well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 16 February 2023 and lasting 90 days. The judgment did not state a monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award complaint under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for alleged failure to consult employees affected by proposed redundancies. No monetary figure was specified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.189(1)(a), (b) or (c) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.