The claimant was part of a workforce which was not unionised and the employer had made no arrangements in relation to the election of a relevant employee representatives. More than 20 employees, including the claimant, were then made redundant by the employer, prior to which no collective consultation took place. The claimant came before the tribunal seeking a protective award. The employer had not shown that there were any special circumstances which rendered it not reasonably practicable to carry out any collective consultation process whatsoever. Furthermore, the employer could not show that it took such steps towards compliance with the requirements of Article 216 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order, as were reasonably practicable in such circumstances. 

The main issue facing the tribunal was whether the claimant was entitled to a claim since it was nearly 14 months after the date of the relevant dismissals when he commenced proceedings. The tribunal recognised the difference between claims of unfair dismissal and protective awards in that ordinarily ‘ignorance as to one’s entitlement to make a complaint of unfair dismissal is not reasonable ignorance.’ However, in respect of protective awards complaints it was held that remedies are not generally well known and thus it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to comply with the relevant primary time-limit. The second limb of the test was whether the “further period of delay was reasonable”. In reaching a conclusion in favour of the claimant, the tribunal relied heavily on his ill-health and social isolation.

Practical lessons

This represents a relatively claimant-friendly approach from the tribunal, as the delay of eleven months after the expiration of the primary time-limit was indeed considerable. The context of the claims i.e. against an employer who failed to consult with employees before redundancies certainly allowed for a more generous approach. Interestingly, the Tribunal stated that the claimant’s physical health had no bearing on reaching the first conclusion regarding ‘reasonable ignorance’ and thus future claimants could cite this case as authority regardless of whether physical or mental health difficulties are involved.