Case 4107869/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107869/2019 & others per attached schedule Mr G Rae & others v Granite Rock Casino Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107869/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Muriel Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107869/2019 & others per attached schedule Mr G Rae & others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. The liquidator, Mr Michael JM Reid, confirmed by letter dated 2 August 2019 that he did not object to the claims continuing and did not intend to defend them, so the Employment Judge issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material.
The tribunal found that the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was well founded. It recorded that on or around 20 June 2019 the claimants were notified that their employment was ending by reason of redundancy, but that no consultation or notice was given before termination.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees by reason of redundancy within a 90-day period, and that all of the employees were based at the same establishment. It therefore held that a protective award should be made in respect of the former employees working at the respondent’s establishment at 333 Union Street, Aberdeen AB11 6BS.
The protected period was set at 90 days beginning on 20 June 2019. The extracted judgment does not state a monetary figure for the protective award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 21 judgment on the papers. The tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and stated that a protective award should be made. No monetary amount was set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
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.