Case 4103816/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Diane McDonald v Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103816/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Diane McDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a Food Service Adviser at the respondent's Stirling store. On 30 May 2020, while furloughed, she was told by telephone conference call that all employees in Debenhams' Food Services Division were being dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect. Her employment ended on 31 May 2020, and the tribunal accepted that at least 25 to 30 restaurant employees at the Stirling store were dismissed on that date.
The tribunal found that there was no recognised independent trade union for the claimant, no employee representatives had been appointed or elected, no steps had been taken to arrange an election of representatives, and there had been no consultation with the claimant or anyone on her behalf before dismissal. It held that sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were engaged and that the respondent had failed to comply with those obligations.
The tribunal found no special circumstances making compliance not reasonably practicable, noting that administration did not of itself amount to special circumstances. Applying GMB v Susie Radin Ltd, it treated 90 days as the starting point where there had been no consultation and found no relevant mitigating circumstances. It therefore made a protective award of 90 days' pay, with the protected period commencing on 31 May 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was for a protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 following collective redundancy consultation failures. The judgment awarded 90 days' pay but did not state a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 188 and 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(7) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] IRLR 400
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.