Case 4107037/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Batko & Others v Casual Dining Services Ltd (dissolved) — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107037/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Batko & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 21 on the available material because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator consented to the continuation of the proceedings in a letter dated 18 May 2021.
The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to bring the claim because the complaint concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and the claimants were employees dismissed as redundant. It found that the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less.
The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was held to be well founded. The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
The Tribunal made a protective award in respect of Mrs M Kubiak, Miss M Bercikova, Mr M R Batko, Miss L D Collingridge, Mr C Sokolowski, Mr L S Hawkins, Miss T Matranga and Miss M Kolarovska. The respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 2 July 2020 and lasting 90 days; no monetary total was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for failure to comply with section 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and to consult in accordance with section 188. No monetary amount is specified; the award is remuneration for a 90-day protected period. | 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.