Case 4105163/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105162/18 Multiple Ref.: 8637 Ms AM Lewicka & others as per schedule v S L E Enterprises Limited T/a The Lovat Hotel — 2019
- Case reference
- 4105163/2018
- Decision date
- 21 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105162/18 Multiple Ref.: 8637 Ms AM Lewicka & others as per schedule
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants sought a protective award following dismissal. The respondent accepted that it did not inform and consult with the claimants in terms of section 188 and section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the tribunal issued judgment by consent on that basis.
The tribunal was satisfied on the information before it that the claimants were employed by S L E Enterprises Limited t/a The Lovat Hotel in various posts and were dismissed by reason of redundancy. It recorded that a total of 47 employees were dismissed on 25 January 2018 or in the 90-day period following that date.
By consent, the tribunal awarded each claimant eight weeks' pay for the protected period running from 25 January 2018, as a protective award under section 189(2) of TULRCA 1992. The judgment does not set out a monetary total or split the award into separate monetary components.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Judgment of consent recorded that the respondent did not inform and consult with the claimants under section 188 and section 188A of TULRCA 1992. The tribunal made a protective award under section 189(2) for eight weeks' pay for the protected period from 25 January 2018. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189(2) 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.