Dobson Steenson McAuley Bond Annett Kelly Sands v David and Ruth Coates & Ors [2015] NIIT 02087_12 (02 July 2015)

Dobson Steenson McAuley Bond Annett Kelly Sands v David and Ruth Coates & Ors [2015] NIIT 02087_12 (02 July 2015)

The tribunal found that the first named respondents failed to fulfill their statutory obligations under TUPE 2006 to consult with employee representatives and to facilitate the election of such representatives. The consultation that did occur was partial and primarily at the claimants' initiative. The award of five weeks' pay was deemed just and equitable given the circumstances and the extent of the failure.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 02087_12
Parties
Claimant: Elaine Frances Dobson; Claimant: Stephanie Steenson; Claimant: Helen McAuley; Claimant: Christina Bond; Claimant: Linda Jacqueline Annett; Claimant: Lena Doris Kelly; Claimant: Nicola Sands; Respondent: David and Ruth Coates; Respondent: Philip Martin; Respondent: Elizabeth Anderson
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Post Judgment Review Application
Outcome
applications for review refused
Legal Topics
TUPE, Consultation Requirements, Employee Representation, Review of Tribunal Decision
Employment Law TUPE Consultation Requirements Employee Representation Review of Tribunal Decision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elaine Frances Dobson

Claimant

Stephanie Steenson

Claimant

Helen McAuley

Claimant

Christina Bond

Claimant

Linda Jacqueline Annett

Claimant

Lena Doris Kelly

Claimant

Nicola Sands

Claimant

David and Ruth Coates

Respondent

Philip Martin

Respondent

Elizabeth Anderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Post Judgment Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in its decision regarding consultation obligations under TUPE 2006
  2. 2 Whether the contract for sale was void ab initio due to alleged non-disclosures and misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether the award of five weeks' pay to each claimant was just and equitable

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the first named respondents failed to fulfill their statutory obligations under TUPE 2006 to consult with employee representatives and to facilitate the election of such representatives. The consultation that did occur was partial and primarily at the claimants' initiative. The award of five weeks' pay was deemed just and equitable given the circumstances and the extent of the failure.

Court Disposition

applications for review refused

Orders

  • Application for review by second and third named respondents refused.
  • Application for review by first named respondents refused.