Case 4108524/2015 · Employment Tribunal
R Gall Mr Joseph McDonald v Commercial Property Maintenance Services Limited and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 4108524/2015
- Decision date
- 9 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
3 namedClaimant
R Gall Mr Joseph McDonald
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal found that the second respondents failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. On that basis, it made a protected award in favour of both claimants, Joseph McDonald and Andrew Clarke. The judgment identifies the protected period as 23 January 2015 to 23 April 2015.
The extracted judgment is brief and does not set out a separate monetary figure for the award. It also does not contain any detailed narrative reasoning beyond the finding of non-compliance with section 188 and the making of the protected award. No discrimination issues are identified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The tribunal found that the second respondents failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protected award in respect of both claimants, Joseph McDonald and Andrew Clarke, for the protected period 23 January 2015 to 23 April 2015. The extracted text does not state the monetary amount of the award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.188 TULRCA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.