Claimant v AES Realisations (Coventry) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found there was no consultation at all at the Coventry establishment prior to dismissals on 12 May 2020. Despite administration on 7 May 2020, the First Respondent remained obliged to consult under s.188 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal awarded the maximum 90-day protective period due to the complete absence of consultation.
In respect of the Birmingham establishment, the tribunal found that consultation had taken place from late 2019/early 2020, including discussions about transfers to Coventry and agreement on redundancy packages. The claimant did not satisfy the burden of proving failure to consult properly; the evidence showed that consultation occurred and likely met the statutory requirements.
Facts
AES Realisations (Coventry) Limited entered administration on 7 May 2020 and subsequently liquidation. It operated two establishments: Birmingham and Coventry. Recognised trade unions GMB and Unite alleged failure to consult before collective redundancies in May 2020. At Coventry, approximately 50-110 workers were dismissed via telephone calls from 11-12 May 2020 with no prior consultation. At Birmingham, 52 employees were dismissed on 15 May 2020, but evidence showed consultations had taken place from late 2019/early 2020, including discussions about transfers to Coventry and agreed redundancy packages.
Decision
The tribunal found that GMB was recognised at Birmingham, and both GMB and Unite were recognised at Coventry. The claim succeeded in respect of Coventry where there was a complete failure to consult under s.188 TULRCA 1992, resulting in a 90-day protective award. The claim failed in respect of Birmingham because the claimants did not prove on the balance of probabilities that consultation obligations were breached, as evidence showed consultation had occurred.
Practical note
Even where a company enters administration, the obligation to consult under s.188 TULRCA 1992 remains, and a complete failure to consult will attract the maximum 90-day protective award absent mitigating circumstances.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1306331/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Various roles including inventory controller
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister