Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Sacked m&e workers win pay out

Unite the Union is celebrating its second compensation victory in the past four months on behalf of sacked m&e workers and is preparing for another legal battle later in the year.

The victory follows in the wake of a smaller pay out secured for workers at failed Brightlingsea firm Ruddocks in December and ahead of a tribunal in the summer regarding Chelmsford based Franklin M&E which also went into administration last year.

In the latest case fourteen union members who worked for Ipswich based firm Warners M&E have won a share of more than £132,000 in compensation including damages for loss of statutory rights and a protective award of 13 weeks pay per member due to the company's
failure to consult with them and their union

Unite pursued the claim through its solicitors Rowley Ashworth after the workers -including electricians, pipefitters, heating engineers and apprentices - were made immediately redundant with no notice or consultation as a result of the company going into administration in March last year.

Unite Regional Officer Richard Clark said the case showed the importance of payment reforms in the Construction Act.

He said: “It is sad that a company with more than 100 years of history, a great skilled work force and apprentices is forced to shut overnight. Something is really wrong if that happens.

“The government must ensure that changes genuinely bring about security of payments, especially for small and medium sized businesses.”

He added: “Unite will not tolerate our members being dismissed with no notice, consultation and adequate compensation. The outcome of this case demonstrates that the union will take action where legal obligations to employees are not adhered to.'