Case 4107592/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Forsyth v And others set out in the attached schedule Hadden Construction Limited (In Administration) st and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 4107592/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with a Rule 22 judgment on the available material. It recorded that Hadden Construction Limited (in Administration) had dismissed 20 or more employees as redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, with the dismissals taking place on 10 September 2024. The claimants were entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives, and there was no recognised trade union involved.
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The claim was not contested by the 1st Respondent, and no response from the 2nd Respondent was presented within the applicable time limit.
The Tribunal held that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the 1992 Act was well founded and made a protective award in respect of the claimants. It ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period, which it identified as the 90-day period beginning on 10 September 2024, in relation to the redundancy dismissals at 1 Maidenplain Place, Aberuthven, Nr Auchterarder, Perthshire PH3 1EL.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the Tribunal found the respondent failed to consult collectively and made a protective award for the claimants. No monetary figure was stated in the extracted judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.