Claimant v J H Horn Ltd (in liquidation) — 2022

The claimants were employed by the respondent at its Glasgow establishment until their dismissals on or around 3 July 2020, when the company ceased to trade. The tribunal recorded that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation, that the liquidator did not intend to defend the claims, and that the relevant sheriff court had granted permission for the proceedings to continue. Although the ET1 originally advanced claims including unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay, those other heads were sisted; the final hearing proceeded only on the protective award claim.

The tribunal found that the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at the establishment within a period of 90 days or less. There was no independent trade union recognised for collective bargaining purposes, no employee representatives were appointed or elected, and the respondent entirely failed to inform or consult about the dismissals. The tribunal said there had been no consultation prior to the claimants' dismissals and no warning whatsoever of redundancy.

At the final hearing, Mr Graham gave evidence on behalf of all three claimants and was found to be credible and reliable. The judge accepted the claimants' complaint that the respondent had failed to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the 1992 Act, and, having regard to Susie Radin Limited v GMB, made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 3 July 2020. The tribunal recorded that no mitigating circumstances were put forward to justify any reduction in that period. The extracted text does not state a quantified monetary total for the award.