Case 8001612/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A MacLeod v Dovetail Enterprises (1993) Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001612/2025
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A MacLeod
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kemp decided the matter on the papers under Rule 22. The respondent was in administration, the joint administrators consented to the claims proceeding, and the claims were not contested. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed 20 or more employees as redundant at its Dunsinane Industrial Estate site on dates between 28 and 31 March 2025, and that the claimants were dismissed on 28 March 2025.
The tribunal found that there was no recognised trade union involved, that the respondent failed to ensure employee representatives were elected in accordance with s.188A, and that it then failed to consult with them as required by s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The complaint that the respondent failed to comply with s.188 was held to be well founded, and the tribunal made a protective award. The protected period was 90 days beginning on 28 March 2025, and the respondent was ordered to pay remuneration for that protected period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Protective award made for failure to comply with s.188 and s.188A TULRCA 1992; the judgment does not specify a cash amount in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 188A TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.