Case 4104918/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Boyle v CMS Enviro Systems Ltd (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104918/2022
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Boyle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge decided the case on the available material under rule 21. The claimant was entitled to bring the complaint because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and he was an employee dismissed as redundant. No response was lodged by the respondent within the applicable time limit, although the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 24 November 2022.
The tribunal held that the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It found that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, but failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
A protective award was made in respect of the claimants as employees dismissed as redundant at the respondent’s CMS Castlecary workplace in Glasgow. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period, which began on 5 May 2022 and lasted 90 days. The extracted judgment does not state a single monetary figure for the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found the complaint well founded under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The case was decided on the available material under rule 21 because no response was presented within the time limit. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.