The EAT has held that the presumption of a 90 day protective award in collective redundancy consultation cases applies in the same way when the minimum period of consultation is 30 (rather than 90) days.
In Susie Radin, the EAT and Court of Appeal made it clear that a protective award was penal and that 90 days' pay should be awarded unless there were good reasons for awarding less. In this case, Evans v Permacell, less than 20 employees were made redundant, thus the consultation period was 30, not 90, days. The ET awarded 30 days' pay as a protective award, taking into account the lower duration of the consultation period. The EAT reversed this, holding the 90-day presumption applies equally to 30-day consultation cases as it does to 90-day consultation cases.
[Thanks to Asha Wije of Rowley Ashworth, who acted for the successful Appellant, for telling me about this case]