Case 4104094/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Farmer v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104094/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Farmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Market Manager and was dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 30 April 2020 after the respondent entered administration. She argued that the stores she oversaw should be treated together as one establishment, which would produce at least 20 employees and trigger collective consultation obligations.
The tribunal found that Glasgow Buchanan was an establishment and that the claimant was assigned to that store. It relied on matters including the store's own staff, manager, identity, location, stock and fixtures, and the claimant's contractual statement naming Glasgow Buchanan as her primary place of employment.
The tribunal found insufficient evidence to treat all stores within the claimant's responsibility as one establishment, and noted that the Market Manager group would not reach 20 employees. It concluded that the obligation to undertake collective consultation did not arise, so the claimant was not entitled to a protective award and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 arising from alleged failure to collectively consult before redundancy. The tribunal found the collective consultation obligation did not arise. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- establishment
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.