Case 4120228/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Kilpatrick & others v Crummock (Scotland) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4120228/2018
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Kilpatrick & others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on the papers because no response had been presented to the claims. Employment Judge F Eccles determined the case on the available material and issued judgment for the claimants listed in the attached schedule against Crummock (Scotland) Limited.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment therefore upheld the collective consultation complaint and made clear that the claimants were entitled to a protective period.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay each claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 1 June 2018. The judgment does not state any quantified monetary award, and no separate breakdown of sums is recorded in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim arising from the respondent's failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment orders remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 1 June 2018, but no monetary sum is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 21 of the 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.