WorkDisputes Logo
Sector Report

Manufacturing Tribunal Data Analysis

Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Manufacturing sector from the last 12 months.

245Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)

Final Manufacturing decisions with at least one determined claim.

54%Success Factor

Proportion of cases won or split/upheld in our database.

46%Dismissal Rate

Cases lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.

↑ Strongest IndicatorRedundancy Pay (90% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorWhistleblowing (5% Success)

Search by Claim Type

Unfair DismissalConstructive DismissalDiscriminationRedundancy PayUnpaid WagesWhistleblowingBreach of ContractHarassment

Showing 17 cases from the last 2 months.

Employers in recent Manufacturing decisions

Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.

Scotia Double Glazing LtdJaguar Land Rover LtdJoseph Heler LtdBarnshaw Section Benders LtdLeidos Industrial Engineers LtdPeople Solutions LtdFort Engineering LtdBritish Steel LtdDukinfield Engineering LtdJ Law LtdPrintstat LtdIndustrial Floor Treatments Ltd (In Administration) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade
17 Aug 2026
Mixed outcome

Discrimination and Unpaid Wages

The claimant succeeded on discrimination arising from disability (refusal to allow return to work) and unauthorised deductions from wages, but lost on other discrimination claims and the reasonable adjustments claim.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Discrimination arising from disability (s15 EqA)
  • failure to make reasonable adjustments (s20/21 EqA)
  • unauthorised deductions from wages (s13 ERA)
  • disability status
  • proportionality of employer's actions

Reference: 8002525/2025

14 Aug 2026
Claim dismissed

Unfair Dismissal and Discrimination

The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not well founded, and the respondent's justification defence succeeded in respect of the discrimination claim, leading to dismissal of all claims.

Legal Issues (4)
  • Unfair dismissal
  • disability discrimination (section 15 Equality Act 2010)
  • justification defence
  • burden of proof

Reference: 1306036/2024

10 Aug 2026
Claim dismissed

Discrimination

The claimant failed to establish primary facts from which discrimination or victimisation could be inferred; the respondent provided credible non‑discriminatory reasons for the rejection, and key decision‑makers were unaware of the alleged protected act.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Direct discrimination (race, perceived disability)
  • victimisation
  • burden of proof
  • time limits
  • whether email constituted a protected act

Reference: 1307046/2024

8 Aug 2026
Claimant won£22,969.78 awarded

Unfair Dismissal and Constructive Dismissal

The respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to pay proper bereavement leave and failing to deal with the grievance, leading to the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Breach of implied term of trust and confidence
  • constructive dismissal
  • failure to follow ACAS Code

Reference: 6020872/2024

5 Aug 2026
Mixed outcome

Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Whistleblowing and Breach of Contract

The claimant won his constructive unfair dismissal claim because the respondent's flawed disciplinary process, trumped-up charges, and unfair final written warning cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence, but lost his whistleblowing claims because the protected disclosure did not materially influence the respondent's actions.

Legal Issues (2)
  • Constructive dismissal: breach of implied term of trust and confidence
  • whether a series of acts cumulatively amounted to a repudiatory breach. Whistleblowing: whether the protected disclosure was the principal reason for the detrimental acts or the constructive dismissal

Reference: 3205717/2022

27 Jul 2026
Mixed outcome

Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Unpaid Wages and Harassment

The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of two years' service, and his discrimination claims were struck out because the respondent could not be held liable for the alleged acts of Autosmart employees; a holiday pay claim remains pending.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Jurisdiction for unfair dismissal (two-year service requirement)
  • strike out for no reasonable prospects
  • vicarious liability under s.109 Equality Act 2010 for acts of third-party employees
  • time limits
  • amendment principles (Selkent Bus v Moore)

Reference: 6004258/2025

27 Jul 2026
Claimant won£39,108.61 awarded

Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other

The claimant won because the respondent dismissed her while she was on maternity leave, which was automatically unfair and discriminatory, and also failed to pay her contractual and statutory entitlements.

Legal Issues (7)
  • Automatic unfair dismissal for maternity-related reason (section 99 ERA)
  • pregnancy and maternity discrimination (section 18 EqA)
  • wrongful dismissal
  • unlawful deduction from wages for holiday pay
  • failure to provide written reasons for dismissal
  • ACAS uplift for failure to follow statutory procedure
  • grossing up of awards

Reference: 3313227/2023

24 Jul 2026
Outcome unclear

Discrimination

The discrimination claim was dismissed as out of time, but other claims continue, so the overall case is not resolved.

Legal Issues (2)
  • Time limit for discrimination claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010
  • just and equitable extension

Reference: 6031370/2025

24 Jul 2026
Claimant won£14,961.50 awarded

Discrimination, Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Whistleblowing and Breach of Contract

The claimant won on all remaining claims (wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions, holiday pay, and redundancy) after the respondent failed to respond and the discrimination/whistleblowing claims were withdrawn.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Default judgment under Rule 22(2) where respondent failed to respond
  • wrongful dismissal (notice pay)
  • unlawful deduction from wages
  • accrued holiday pay on termination
  • statutory redundancy payment calculation

Reference: 2404432/2025

20 Jul 2026
Claimant won£11,133.88 awarded

Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract

The dismissal was unfair due to a complete lack of procedural fairness, and the employer failed to prove gross misconduct, entitling the claimant to notice pay.

Legal Issues (6)
  • Fairness of dismissal under s.98(4) ERA 1996
  • adequacy of investigation
  • gross misconduct and repudiatory breach
  • contributory fault
  • mitigation of loss
  • ACAS Code uplift

Reference: 4103932/2025

20 Jul 2026
Claimant won£4,131 awarded

Redundancy Pay

The respondent failed to respond and the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,131.00.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Redundancy payment entitlement
  • default judgment under rule 22
  • s163 Employment Rights Act 1996

Reference: 6035057/2025

17 Jul 2026
Claimant won

Redundancy Pay

The claimants succeeded because the respondent dismissed more than 20 employees as redundant without electing employee representatives and consulting with them as required by TULRCA 1992 ss.188/188A.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Collective redundancy consultation
  • election of employee representatives
  • protective award under TULRCA 1992

Reference: 4101075/2026

16 Jul 2026
Claimant won

Redundancy Pay

The employer failed to conduct any collective consultation before dismissing 141 employees for redundancy, breaching section 188 TULCRA.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Failure to comply with section 188 TULCRA duty to collectively consult when proposing 20 or more redundancies within 90 days
  • no special circumstances to excuse the failure
  • protective award of 90 days' remuneration granted

Reference: 1304080/2025

15 Jul 2026
Mixed outcome

Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Discrimination, Whistleblowing, Breach of Contract, Harassment and Other

The claimant succeeded on one harassment claim (racially offensive comment) but failed on all other claims including whistleblowing, discrimination, constructive dismissal, and breach of contract.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Whether the monkey comment amounted to harassment related to race
  • whether the claimant's disclosures were protected
  • whether the employer's actions were discriminatory or in breach of contract

Reference: 6002021/2024

7 Jul 2026
Claim dismissed

Discrimination, Breach of Contract and Other

The claims were dismissed because the first respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability, the third respondent did not terminate her employment, and the reasonable adjustments claim failed as the offered adjustments were reasonable.

Legal Issues (5)
  • Whether the respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of disability
  • whether adjustments were reasonable
  • whether there was unfavourable treatment under s.15 Equality Act 2010
  • whether the Agency Workers Regulations were breached
  • whether notice pay was owed

Reference: 3320575/2021

7 Jul 2026
Claimant won

Redundancy Pay

The respondent failed to consult with employee representatives about the proposed mass redundancies, as required by s.188 TULRCA, and no special circumstances excused the failure, so the protective award claim succeeded.

Legal Issues (4)
  • Collective redundancy consultation under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  • protective award for failure to consult
  • no response from respondent leading to rule 22 judgment
  • length of protected period (90 days) based on Susie Radin guidelines

Reference: 1400950/2025

3 Jul 2026
Claim struck out

Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract

The claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, so the complaint was struck out and the entire claim dismissed.

Legal Issues (3)
  • Qualifying period of service for unfair dismissal claim
  • application to amend claim refused
  • strike out for lack of jurisdiction

Reference: 6019837/2024

Data sources

Decisions are sourced from official GOV.UK Employment Tribunal publications.

Important: Summaries and statistics are automated. Always verify against the original decision documents.