Case 4101920/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cunnane v Roadbridge UK Ltd – In Administration — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101920/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cunnane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material because no response was presented. It recorded that the respondent was in administration, but the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 5 May 2022. The judge accepted 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 complaint well founded under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, but failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then to consult with them in accordance with section 188. A protective award was made in respect of employees dismissed as redundant at the Bellshill site, and the protected period began on 16 March 2022 and ran for 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award for failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; protected period fixed at 90 days from 16 March 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A of the 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.