Mr Ayannuga v SPL Powerlines Group — 2021

Mr Ayannuga started work for SPL Powerlines UK Ltd on 10 November 2017 and was later demoted from Authorised Person to Earthing Assistant after the Sundon near-miss incident in December 2018. The tribunal found that the incident led to a final written warning, removal of his Authorised Person duties, and an appeal outcome in July 2019 confirming that status. It accepted that the claimant believed he would be placed on a development plan and could work back towards Authorised Person duties, but found that the Respondent had decided not to put him forward for further assessment because of safety concerns and Mr Hext's view of his suitability.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a downturn in work and a review of structure, and that all Earthing Assistant posts within the Isolations Department were made redundant. It rejected the suggestion that redundancy was used as a way of removing the Claimant because of the Sundon incident, noting that the Respondent had not dismissed him at the time of that incident and had retained him in alternative work.

The tribunal also found that the redundancy process was fair. It held that the Claimant received adequate warning and consultation, was accompanied by his trade union representative, and had the chance to raise points and appeal. It accepted that by the end of the process there was no selection exercise between Earthing Assistants because all such posts were removed, and it found that the Respondent had taken reasonable steps to consider alternatives. It was not unreasonable, on the tribunal's findings, for the Respondent to decline to retrain him back into a safety-critical Authorised Person role which it considered unsafe for him.

On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that the Sentinel rules did not impose a contractual duty to keep all of the Claimant's competencies up to date regardless of his current role. It found that the Respondent was required to maintain the competencies needed for his then role as Earthing Assistant, but not to fund or provide retraining to restore his former Authorised Person competencies. Both claims therefore failed and no monetary award was made.