Search

How can we help?

Icon

Max award for employees told of redundancies via social media

Twenty-three employees have won the maximum ‘Protective Award’ of 90 days extra pay because their employer failed to ‘inform and consult’ with them about their redundancies. Under S188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA), employers must follow collective consultation rules where it proposes to make over 20 redundancies in a 90 day period.

Consultations must start 30 days before the proposed dismissal of between 20 and 99 employees or 45 days for 100+ employees

(And it’s important to note that even if fewer than 20, or fewer than 100, employees are subsequently made redundant, the original start date for the consultations still applies. That is because the collective consultation rules are based on the number of dismissals being proposed at the beginning of the process).

In this case of Whalley & Others v The Bliss Space (Southport) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) the employees were furloughed in March 2020 from their jobs at a theatre and conference centre. They discovered through their employer’s social media page that from May 2020 they would not be returning to work as their employer had gone into liquidation. It had been clear in the social media post that the company had been in discussion with the local authority about the impending closure, but neither the employees nor their union had been contacted before the decision was made.

The employment tribunal awarded each individual the maximum protective award of 90 days’ gross pay because Bliss Space was unable to demonstrate a ‘special circumstances’ defence which meant it was not reasonably practicable to consult in good time.

Employers still need to comply with their obligations under S188 TULCRA.

This case serves as a warning that if a business needs to make redundancies caused by the coronavirus pandemic related lockdowns that, on its own, is not enough to provide a special circumstances defence.

If you have any questions about how to manage a collective redundancy process, or the special circumstances defence, our employment team is on hand to help.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.