- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mrs A Griffin and Others v Virtuoso Doors Ltd (in administration) (England and Wales : Protective Award)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Claimants presented claims in the Employment Tribunal on 14 March 2025. Company A failed to present a valid response within time, and its administrators consented to the claims continuing. [1][2][3]
The claims concerned alleged failures by Company A to comply with collective redundancy consultation requirements before dismissing employees assigned to The Site on 18 December 2024. [4][5][6]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Company A failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. [4][7][8]
- Whether the Claimants were entitled to complain under section 189 of that Act and receive a protective award. [9][10]
- What length of protected period was appropriate. [10][11]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| GMB v Susie Radin Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 180 | Guidance concerning the appropriate length of a protective award, having regard to the seriousness of the employer's default. | The Tribunal considered the seriousness of Company A's failure to consult and applied the guidance in determining the protected period. [11] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal determined that the claims could properly be decided on the available material despite the absence of a response from Company A. [1][2][12]
It found that Company A proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant within a period of 90 days or less, and that the Claimants were employees who might be affected by those dismissals and were assigned to The Site. [5][6]
The Site was found to be either an establishment itself or part of a unit constituting an establishment for the purposes of section 188. Company A was therefore required to consult appropriate representatives of affected employees. [7][13]
No independent trade union was recognised for the Claimants, no qualifying employee representatives had been elected, and Company A had not invited the affected employees to elect representatives. [14][15]
The Tribunal concluded that Company A failed to comply with section 188 and had not shown special circumstances making compliance reasonably impracticable. The claims were presented within the applicable time limit. [9][8][16][17]
Because there had been no consultation at all and no mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal considered it just and equitable to impose the maximum 90-day protected period, having regard to the guidance in GMB v Susie Radin Ltd. [10][11][18]
Holding and Implications
Company A was ordered to pay a protective award equivalent to 90 days' remuneration to employees assigned to The Site who were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 18 December 2024. [19][20]
The Recoupment Regulations apply, and the previously listed hearing was vacated. [21][22] The opinion identifies no broader implications or new precedent beyond its direct effect on the Claimants and the affected employees.
Alert