Case 8001223/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Horn v Valve Components Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001223/2024
- Decision date
- 5 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Horn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 on the available material because no response had been presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator had consented to the continuation of the proceedings.
The Tribunal found the claimant was entitled to bring the claim because it concerned a failure relating to the election of employee representatives and the claimant was an employee dismissed as redundant. It found the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less.
The Tribunal held 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 found the respondent failed to ensure employee representatives were elected under section 188A and then failed to consult with them under section 188. A protective award was made for a protected period beginning on 5 August 2024 and lasting 90 days, with the respondent ordered to pay remuneration for that period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment concerns a protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under sections 188 and 188A of TULRCA 1992. The locked taxonomy has no separate protective award category, so this is classified as trade_union_related. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.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.