Mass redundancy without employee elections: protective award and multiple breaches
A tribunal found that Elliot House Limited unfairly dismissed most of its workforce in a redundancy process that failed to arrange employee representative elections, entitling them to a protective award, notice pay, and compensation for pension contribution breaches.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- All claimants except Amanda Humphreys and Amy Goldsmith were unfairly dismissed.
- All claimants except Amanda Humphreys and Amy Goldsmith are entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.
- The respondent failed to arrange elections for employee representatives, entitling all claimants to a protective award.
- All claimants were wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract and entitled to notice pay.
- The respondent made unauthorized deductions from wages in November 2021.
- The respondent failed to provide itemised pay statements for the pay period ending 26 November 2021.
Timeline
-
Pension contributions breach begins
The respondent failed to make employer pension contributions and failed to pass on employee pension contributions from April 2020 until the effective date of termination.
-
Unauthorised deductions from wages
The respondent made unauthorized deductions from each claimant's pay in the pay period ending 26 November 2021.
-
Hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Dyal heard the case at London South Employment Tribunal and issued a Rule 21 judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer had followed proper collective consultation procedures before making 23 employees redundant, and whether it had breached contracts by failing to pay notice, holiday pay, and pension contributions.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that all but two of the 23 claimants were unfairly dismissed and entitled to statutory redundancy payments. The employer failed to arrange elections for employee representatives as required by law, so all claimants received a protective award. The employer also wrongfully dismissed them in breach of contract, entitling them to notice pay, and made unauthorized deductions from wages in November 2021. Additionally, the employer breached pension obligations by failing to make employer contributions and failing to pass on employee contributions from April 2020 until dismissal.
Compensation details are to be determined at a remedy hearing, but the following heads of claim were upheld:
- Unfair dismissal (basic and compensatory awards)
- Statutory redundancy payment
- Protective award (up to 90 days' pay per claimant)
- Notice pay (wrongful dismissal)
- Holiday pay
- Unauthorized deductions from wages
- Pension contributions (employer and employee)
- Itemised pay statement failure
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must arrange elections for employee representatives before making 20 or more redundancies at one establishment, or face a protective award of up to 90 days' pay per employee.
- Failing to pay notice, holiday pay, and pension contributions can lead to multiple successful claims for breach of contract and unauthorized deductions.
- Even if an employer does not attend the hearing, the tribunal can still issue a judgment based on the evidence, so it is risky to ignore proceedings.
- Employees should check their pay statements and pension records for errors, as failures to provide itemised statements or pass on contributions are actionable.
This case shows how a redundancy process can go wrong on multiple fronts. Elliot House Limited made 23 employees redundant without arranging elections for employee representatives, which is a legal requirement when 20 or more redundancies are proposed. The tribunal found that this failure alone made the dismissals unfair and entitled all claimants to a protective award.
What the employer did wrong
Beyond the flawed redundancy process, the employer also breached contracts by failing to give notice pay and holiday pay. It made unauthorized deductions from wages in November 2021 and failed to provide itemised pay statements. Most significantly, from April 2020 until the dismissals, the employer stopped making employer pension contributions and also deducted employee contributions from wages but never passed them to the pension scheme. This left employees out of pocket and without pension growth.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that employment protections apply even when an employer is struggling financially or chooses not to defend the claims. The tribunal made clear that collective consultation rules exist to give employees a voice during large-scale redundancies. The protective award is designed to penalize employers who ignore those rules, and here it was awarded to all 23 claimants. The range of successful claims — from unfair dismissal to pension breaches — shows that employees can recover losses across multiple areas when an employer fails to follow basic legal obligations.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal leads to £17,570 award for multiple employment rights breaches
A former employee of Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd was awarded £17,570.97 after being unfairly dismissed by redundancy, with the tribunal also finding unauthorised wage deductions, unpaid holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars.
Four former employees win redundancy, wage and pension claims against Carl's Kitchen Limited
An employment tribunal has upheld claims from four former employees of Carl's Kitchen Limited for unpaid redundancy, unauthorised wage deductions, and missing pension contributions. The company failed to attend the hearing.
Two employees unfairly dismissed after wage deductions and ACAS code breach
Two former employees of Strong Maker Limited were awarded over £20,000 in total after the tribunal found they were unfairly and automatically unfairly dismissed, with a 25% uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
Dismissed after 12 weeks: redundancy, unpaid wages and holiday pay
A former employee was awarded over £10,700 after James Andrew Prams & Nurseries Ltd failed to pay redundancy, wages, notice pay and holiday pay following a redundancy dismissal.