Case 4106177/2024 · Employment Tribunal
the Union v Valve Components Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106177/2024
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty Unite
Parties
2 namedClaimant
the Union
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 because no response had been presented within the applicable time limit. It recorded that the respondent was in administration, and that the administrator had consented to the continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 31 July 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant union was entitled to bring the claim because the complaint concerned a failure relating to representatives of a trade union. It found the complaint under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well founded: the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less and had failed to carry out any consultation at all with the appropriate representatives of affected employees.
The tribunal made a protective award covering all hourly paid shop floor employees employed at the respondent's Kelvin Park South, East Kilbride establishment. The protected period began on 15 March 2024 and lasted for 90 days, with the respondent ordered to pay remuneration for that protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The claim was a complaint by the union that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the tribunal made a protective award but did not specify a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.