Claimant v Tayside Aviation Ltd (In Administration) — 2023

The claimants, led by Mr Bill Stewart, brought a multiple claim against Tayside Aviation Ltd (in administration) alleging failure to comply with collective consultation obligations before dismissals on 20 April 2023. The respondent's administrators accepted that 22 employees had been dismissed on that date without consultation, and the claimants before the tribunal were the 17 employees listed in the schedule.

The tribunal found that all 17 claimants were employed by the respondent on 20 April 2023 and that their employment ended that day by reason of redundancy. It accepted that no trade union was recognised for negotiation purposes, that employees were told the company had gone into administration and would be closing, and that no prior notice of redundancies had been given. No attempt was made to elect employee representatives or otherwise choose appropriate representatives for consultation under s.188A.

Applying ss.188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the tribunal held that there had been no consultation at all and that the respondent had failed to make arrangements for the election of appropriate representatives. It rejected any special circumstances defence under s.188(7), referring to Clarks of Hove Ltd v Bakers Union and stating that insolvency was not, of itself, exceptional or out of the ordinary.

The tribunal made a declaration under s.189(2) that the respondent had breached its consultation obligations and, following the approach in Suzy Radin Ltd v GMB and others, ordered a protective award of 90 days' remuneration. The judgment does not set out a monetary total in pounds for the award.