Case 4106503/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cavanagh & others v McGill Facilities Management Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106503/2022
- Decision date
- 11 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cavanagh & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material. No response was presented within the applicable time limit, and the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings by email dated 7 December 2022. The tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and the claimants were employees dismissed as redundant.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. It held that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with s.188A and then to consult with them in accordance with s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 was therefore well founded.
The tribunal made a protective award in respect of the employees dismissed as redundant by the respondent at its Harrison Road, Dundee site. The protected period begins on 25 August 2022 and lasts for 90 days. The extracted text does not state the amount of remuneration ordered for the protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found a well-founded failure to comply with s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award, but the extracted text does not state the monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.188A TULR(C)A 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.