Case 4104954/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Andrew v Worton Utilities Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104954/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Andrew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material because no response was presented within the time limit. It found the complaint well founded under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees as redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then to consult with them in accordance with section 188. It therefore made a protective award in respect of all employees dismissed as redundant on 30 April 2020 and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period begins on 30 April 2020 and lasts 90 days; the extracted text does not specify a monetary amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the extracted text does not state a monetary figure, only that remuneration is to be paid for the protected period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21 of the 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.