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

1. 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]
2. Whether the Claimants were entitled to complain under section 189 of that Act and receive a protective award. [9][10]
3. 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

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.