Case 8001642/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Murray v Valve Components Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001642/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 because no response had been presented within the applicable time limit. The respondent was in administration, but the administrator had consented to continuation of the proceedings by letter dated 1 November 2024.
The Tribunal found 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 that the respondent had dismissed as redundant more than 20 employees at one establishment within 90 days or less, failed to ensure that employee representatives were elected in accordance with section 188A, and then failed to consult with them in accordance with section 188.
The complaint under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was held well founded. The Tribunal made a protective award in respect of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period beginning on 5 August 2024 and lasting 90 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim concerning alleged failure to comply with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; no specific protective-award enum is available. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A 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.