Case 4106928/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Barrie & others v Represented by: Daniel Cook Representative, Usdaw Meridian Realisations Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106928/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Barrie & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought proceedings against their former employer, Meridian Realisations Limited (formerly Mackays Stores Limited), which was in administration. The administrator consented to the proceedings continuing, and the parties later reached agreement. All parties confirmed consent to judgment being issued under Rule 64 of the Employment Tribunals (Rules of Constitution and Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal recorded that Meridian Realisations Limited (in administration) failed to comply adequately with the requirement in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On that basis, the claim for a protective award under section 189 of that Act succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay remuneration, described in the judgment as a protective award, to the claimants named in the attached schedule for a protected period of 56 days beginning on 4 August 2020, being the date on which the first of the dismissals to which the complaint related took effect. The judgment does not set out a separate monetary total in the extracted text.
The tribunal made no order for expenses, stating that each party should bear its own expenses in relation to the claims in the schedule.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment was issued by consent under Rule 64. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 64
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.