Case 4103030/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P McDowall and Others (As per attached schedule] Westcrowns Contracting Services Limited (In Administration) Cornerstone v Represented by: Ms P Cunningham Solicitor — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103030/2018
- Decision date
- 24 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P McDowall and Others (As per attached schedule] Westcrowns Contracting Services Limited (In Administration) Cornerstone
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. No response had been presented to the claim, and the administrators confirmed by letter dated 21 March 2018 that they did not object to the claim continuing and did not intend to defend it. The Employment Judge therefore issued judgment on the available material.
The tribunal held that the respondent had failed to comply with the section 188 requirement of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that a protective award should be made in respect of those former employees of the respondent working at the respondent’s establishment in Scotland who were dismissed as redundant on 20 October 2017.
The protected period was set at 45 days beginning on 20 October 2017. The extracted text does not state any monetary sum for the protective award, and no separate remedy figure appears in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was found well founded and a protective award was ordered. The extracted text does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
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.