Case 4105011/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Williams & others v AAD Transport Ltd (In Administration) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105011/2024
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Williams & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 on the available material because the protective award claim was not defended. The first respondent presented no response within the applicable time limit, and the second respondent neither supported nor resisted the claims.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were employees dismissed as redundant and were entitled to bring the claim because the complaint concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives. There was no recognised trade union involved. The first respondent dismissed more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less from the first dismissal on 23 February 2024.
The Tribunal held that the first respondent failed to ensure employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then to inform and consult with them in accordance with section 188. The complaint that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded, and a protective award was made for a protected period beginning on 23 February 2024 and lasting 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective redundancy consultation requirements; no separate enum exists for protective awards. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.