(Sitting Alone)10 Mr S Tsiapanos v Oceaneering International Services Limited — 2017

Mr Tsiapanos claimed unfair dismissal after being dismissed on 2 December 2016, with redundancy given as the reason. The respondent had carried out a redundancy exercise at its Rosyth premises following a reduction in orders, and the tribunal found that redundancy was the reason for dismissal. The claimant challenged his selection, including the inclusion of trainees in his pool, aspects of his scores, the treatment of absence following a brain aneurism in January 2016, and the later retention of three employees who had originally fallen below the retention threshold.

The tribunal found that the respondent had warned affected employees and consulted collectively with the recognised union and individually with the claimant. It accepted that the selection criteria and weightings had been agreed with the union, that the production pool was based on employees doing the same work, and that it was permissible to place emphasis on skills rather than length of service or experience. It also found that the scoring process was fairly conducted by a team including management and an external HR adviser, and that the claimant was given an opportunity to challenge his scores with reasoned responses provided.

On the claimant's absence and illness, the tribunal found that the 12-month scoring period to June 2016 was a permissible choice and that, apart from the score for absences, it did not disadvantage him. It accepted Mr Walker's conclusion that the assessors had had the seriousness of the illness in mind, and it also accepted that the claimant's command of English was not an issue. The tribunal found that the three employees later retained were still employed during their notice periods, whereas the claimant had elected to leave immediately with pay in lieu of notice, so their retention did not affect the fairness of his dismissal.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the redundancy guidance in Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, the tribunal concluded that the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing the claimant for redundancy. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. Because liability failed, no tribunal remedy was awarded, although the judgment recorded redundancy and termination payments made by the respondent outside any tribunal award.