Sector Report

Manufacturing Tribunal Data Analysis

Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Manufacturing sector based on our 12-month database analysis.

146Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)

Historical Manufacturing decisions from our database catalog.

55%Success Factor

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

45%Dismissal Rate

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

↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair dismissal (71% Success)

↓ Weakest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal (51% Success)

Search by Claim Type

Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Discrimination Redundancy Pay Unpaid Wages Whistleblowing Breach Contract Harassment

Showing 19 cases from the last 2 months.

6032585/2025 • 19 Feb 2026

won

The tribunal concluded that the employer breached the contract by not providing the statutory notice and by withholding holiday pay, ordering the employer to pay damages and the outstanding holiday entitlement.

Legal Issues (1)

Breach of contract – failure to give proper notice of dismissal and failure to pay accrued holiday pay.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6000033/2024 • 19 Feb 2026

split

The tribunal held the dismissal was unfair but found no disability discrimination, so the claimant succeeded on the unfair dismissal claim and failed on the discrimination claims.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the dismissal amounted to direct disability discrimination or discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010; whether the employer had a genuine belief and reasonable grounds for misconduct under ERA 1996 s98; application of the band of reasonable responses test to the investigation and decision to dismiss; procedural fairness; and the effect of contributory conduct on compensation.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1401235/2025 • 13 Feb 2026

split

The tribunal found some of the claimants’ claims well‑founded and awarded compensation, but dismissed other claims, resulting in a mixed (split) outcome.

Legal Issues (4)

Whether the dismissals were unfair or wrongful
entitlement to statutory notice pay
breach of the duty to provide written particulars under the Employment Rights Act 1996
and the claimant’s eligibility for redundancy and unfair dismissal compensation based on length of service.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1401724/2025 • 13 Feb 2026

split

The tribunal found the employer had failed to comply with the statutory consultation duties, granting protective awards to most claimants but dismissing the claim for two individuals.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the employer breached its duty to consult under TULRCA s188/188A; entitlement to a protective award and the appropriate length of the protected period; application of the Recoupment Regulations.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1804624/2025 • 11 Feb 2026

won

The tribunal concluded the employer had not complied with its legal consultation obligations, so the protective award claim succeeded.

Legal Issues (1)

Statutory duty to consult under TUCRA sections 188/188A; entitlement to a protective award; ancillary breach of contract and unpaid holiday claim (withdrawn).

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

3314727/2023 • 6 Feb 2026

lost

All of the claimant’s discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed as either time‑barred or not proven to be less favourable treatment because of race.

Legal Issues (1)

Direct race discrimination under Equality Act 2010 s13; harassment related to race under s26; compliance with the three‑month time limit (s123) for discrimination claims.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1300357/2025 • 4 Feb 2026

lost

The tribunal upheld the original finding that the unfair dismissal claim was unfounded, concluding there was no comparable inconsistency of treatment and the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Legal Issues (1)

Unfair dismissal under s98 ERA 1996; assessment of inconsistency of treatment; reasonableness of employer's response; application for reconsideration under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 68‑70.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1600106/2024 • 30 Jan 2026

struck_out

The Tribunal struck out the claim because it was considered scandalous/vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claimant failed to respond to the warning.

Legal Issues (3)

Application of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out a claim deemed scandalous or vexatious
with no reasonable prospect of success
and failure of the claimant to respond to the Tribunal’s warning.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6010525/2025 • 30 Jan 2026

won

The Tribunal found the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim and the unauthorised deductions claim to be well‑founded.

Legal Issues (3)

Constructive unfair dismissal (breach of express verbal term and implied term of mutual trust and confidence)
unauthorised deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996
and related contractual issues.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6031497/2025 • 29 Jan 2026

won

The tribunal concluded the dismissal was unfair and the employer’s unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code justified awarding the claimant compensation.

Legal Issues (3)

Unfair dismissal
breach of ACAS Code of Practice
application of compensatory uplift under s207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1306234/2024 • 29 Jan 2026

lost

All claims were dismissed because the claimant lacked the required qualifying service for unfair dismissal and the other allegations were not substantiated.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant had the two‑year qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim under s108 ERA; the existence of a breach of contract regarding notice pay; and whether there was direct race discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2304560/2024 • 28 Jan 2026

struck_out

The tribunal had no jurisdiction over the first respondent and concluded the claimant was not an employee or worker of the second respondent, leaving the claims with no reasonable prospect of success.

Legal Issues (2)

Lack of territorial jurisdiction over the first respondent; claimant’s employment status (self‑employed consultant
not employee/worker); no reasonable prospect of success for the discrimination and whistleblowing claims.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6031621/2025 • 28 Jan 2026

won

The tribunal found the claimant was effectively employed until 12 August 2025 and therefore entitled to statutory notice, unpaid wages for the period after the last payment, and accrued holiday pay.

Legal Issues (4)

Entitlement to statutory notice under ERA 1996 s94
claim for unpaid wages under s13 ERA 1996
calculation of accrued holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations
and the inability to bring unfair dismissal or redundancy claims due to insufficient service.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

4100447/2025 • 28 Jan 2026

lost

The tribunal concluded the dismissal was for gross misconduct and was therefore fair, so the unfair‑dismissal claim was dismissed.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the dismissal for alleged gross misconduct was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996; the employer’s duty to consider medical evidence and make reasonable adjustments; procedural fairness in the return‑to‑work process; interpretation of the employee handbook’s misconduct provisions.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6019181/2025 • 27 Jan 2026

split

The tribunal found the dismissals occurred before the TUPE transfer, making the transferee liable for unfair and wrongful dismissal, while the transferor and the Secretary of State were not liable.

Legal Issues (1)

Liability for unfair and wrongful dismissal following a TUPE transfer; application of the Polkey deduction; interaction between basic unfair dismissal award and redundancy entitlement.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6022430/2024 • 26 Jan 2026

other

The tribunal extended the limitation periods, allowing the claimant's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims to proceed.

Legal Issues (1)

Extension of limitation periods for unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims; assessment of reasonable practicability; procedural fairness.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6021082/2025 • 26 Jan 2026

lost

The Tribunal found the claim not well founded and dismissed it.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant's allegations were sufficiently substantiated to merit a remedy; the Tribunal concluded the claim was not well founded.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1306178/2024 • 25 Jan 2026

split

The Tribunal found the claimant’s harassment claim to be well‑founded but dismissed all other claims as not well‑founded.

Legal Issues (6)

Unfair dismissal
direct sex discrimination
pregnancy and maternity discrimination
harassment (sex)
pregnancy‑related detriment
unlawful deductions under the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 1996.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6002076/2025 • 25 Jan 2026

lost

All of the claimant’s complaints were dismissed as an abuse of process or barred by res judicata, leaving only limited whistleblowing complaints subject to deposit orders.

Legal Issues (6)

Res judicata/issue estoppel
Henderson v Henderson abuse of process
whistleblowing protection
race discrimination
victimisation
deposit orders under the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

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.

Search by Claim Type

The tribunal concluded that the employer breached the contract by not providing the statutory notice and by withholding holiday pay, ordering the employer to pay damages and the outstanding holiday entitlement.

The tribunal held the dismissal was unfair but found no disability discrimination, so the claimant succeeded on the unfair dismissal claim and failed on the discrimination claims.

The tribunal found some of the claimants’ claims well‑founded and awarded compensation, but dismissed other claims, resulting in a mixed (split) outcome.

The tribunal found the employer had failed to comply with the statutory consultation duties, granting protective awards to most claimants but dismissing the claim for two individuals.

The tribunal concluded the employer had not complied with its legal consultation obligations, so the protective award claim succeeded.

All of the claimant’s discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed as either time‑barred or not proven to be less favourable treatment because of race.

The tribunal upheld the original finding that the unfair dismissal claim was unfounded, concluding there was no comparable inconsistency of treatment and the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The Tribunal struck out the claim because it was considered scandalous/vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, and the claimant failed to respond to the warning.

The Tribunal found the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim and the unauthorised deductions claim to be well‑founded.

The tribunal concluded the dismissal was unfair and the employer’s unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code justified awarding the claimant compensation.

All claims were dismissed because the claimant lacked the required qualifying service for unfair dismissal and the other allegations were not substantiated.

The tribunal had no jurisdiction over the first respondent and concluded the claimant was not an employee or worker of the second respondent, leaving the claims with no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found the claimant was effectively employed until 12 August 2025 and therefore entitled to statutory notice, unpaid wages for the period after the last payment, and accrued holiday pay.

The tribunal concluded the dismissal was for gross misconduct and was therefore fair, so the unfair‑dismissal claim was dismissed.

The tribunal found the dismissals occurred before the TUPE transfer, making the transferee liable for unfair and wrongful dismissal, while the transferor and the Secretary of State were not liable.

The tribunal extended the limitation periods, allowing the claimant's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims to proceed.

The Tribunal found the claim not well founded and dismissed it.

The Tribunal found the claimant’s harassment claim to be well‑founded but dismissed all other claims as not well‑founded.

All of the claimant’s complaints were dismissed as an abuse of process or barred by res judicata, leaving only limited whistleblowing complaints subject to deposit orders.

Data sources

The tribunal found the claimant was effectively employed until 12 August 2025 and therefore entitled to statutory notice, unpaid wages for the period after the last payment, and accrued holiday pay.