Case 4102295/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Woods v Roadbridge UK Ltd – In Administration — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102295/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Woods
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent judgment in the Employment Tribunal under Rule 64. The tribunal held that Roadbridge UK Ltd - In Administration failed to comply with its obligations under sections 188A and 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It therefore made a protective award under section 189 in favour of the claimants.
The agreed findings recorded that the lead claimant, Sean Woods, was one of approximately 300 employees. All were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 16 March 2022. The claimants were not consulted about the impending closure of the company, there was no recognised trade union in the workplace, and there were no other representative bodies with authority to consult with the employer on the employees' behalf.
The tribunal found that, before the redundancies, the respondent failed to consult appropriate representatives of the employees who might be affected by the proposed dismissals. It also found that there were no special circumstances making consultation not reasonably practicable, and that the respondent took no reasonable steps towards compliance with the consultation requirement.
The tribunal recorded that the claimants were all made redundant on 16 March 2022 and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the agreed protection period of 8 weeks starting on that date. The judgment does not state a monetary total in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188, 188A and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; judgment made by consent. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 188 and 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 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.