Case 4104859/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Rose and others (as per attached schedule) v Ivanhoe Caledonian Printing Company Limited (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104859/2022
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Rose and others (as per attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, proceeding under rule 21 because no response was presented, found that the claimants were entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and the claimants were employees dismissed as redundant. The respondent was in compulsory liquidation, but the relevant court had granted permission for these proceedings to continue on 06 July 2023.
The tribunal held that the complaint was well founded under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the respondent had dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, had failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A, and had then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
A protective award was made in respect of each claimant, and the respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period began on 01 August 2022 and lasted for 90 days. The judgment text provided does not specify a separate monetary figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment text does not state a separate monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
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.