Case 4117197/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Lambert Contracts Ltd (In Administration) — 2018
- Case reference
- 4117197/2018
- Decision date
- 5 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. The tribunal noted that Derek Forsyth had been appointed joint administrator of the respondent on or around 1 June 2018 and had confirmed by letter dated 9 October 2018 that he did not object to the claim continuing and did not intend to defend it. The Employment Judge therefore issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that on or around 1 June 2018 the claimant and his colleagues were told their employment was ending by reason of redundancy, but no consultation or notice was given before termination. More than 20 employees were dismissed on 1 June 2018, and the claimant was asked to remain until 15 June 2018 to assist the administrators.
The tribunal also found that the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees by reason of redundancy within a 30-day period and that all were based at the same establishment. It held that there should be a protective award in respect of such former employees working at the respondent’s establishment at 108-110 Hawkhead Road, Paisley, PA2 7BA who were dismissed as redundant in June 2018. The protected period was set at 90 days beginning on 15 June 2018.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The complaint was that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found that complaint well founded and made a protective award, but the extracted text does not state a monetary amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.