Case 4104012/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bailey & others as per attached schedule v Mr T Bathgate & others as per attached schedule Central Building Contractors — 2020
- Case reference
- 4104012/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bailey & others as per attached schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on a claim brought under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. No response was lodged, and the tribunal was satisfied that it was appropriate to issue judgment under Rule 21. The judgment identifies the claimants as those in the attached schedule.
The tribunal found the complaint under section 189 TULCRA well founded and held that a protective award should be made. It recorded that the claimants in the schedule were dismissed as redundant and that the respondents failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 TULCRA in relation to those dismissals.
The tribunal ordered a protective award for the relevant claimants, with the protective period beginning on 28 April 2020 and running for 90 days. The extracted text does not set out any monetary figure for the award or any further breakdown by claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the complaint under s.189 TULCRA well founded and made a protective award for the claimants in the attached schedule who were dismissed as redundant. The judgment states that the protective period begins on 28 April 2020 and lasts 90 days, but it does not state a monetary sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.189 TULCRA
- s.188 TULCRA
- Rule 21
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.