Case 8000620/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J McAllister v Valve Components Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000620/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J McAllister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 because no response was presented within the applicable time limit. The judgment records that the respondent was in administration, and that the administrator consented to continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 23 May 2024.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and she was an employee dismissed as redundant. It found the complaint well founded: the respondent dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, failed to ensure employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A, and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
The Tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for the protected period. The protected period begins on 15 March 2024 and lasts for 90 days, but no monetary sum is stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was a protective award complaint concerning failure to comply with collective redundancy consultation requirements under sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA 1992. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 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.