ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Draft Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: S/4100778/2017 Heard at Edinburgh on the rd, th and th with Deliberation on th October 20175 Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone) Mrs L Page v Briggs Marine Contractors Limited — 2017

Mrs L Page was employed by Briggs Marine Contractors Limited from 18 April 2012 until 19 January 2017. Her role changed over time from Workshop Coordinator to Support Services Administrator, and from 2015 she reported to Martin Anderson. The tribunal accepted that relations between them deteriorated and that she raised concerns about his management to Graham Gray in July 2015 and January 2016, but it found that those complaints were general criticisms of management and were not the reason for her dismissal.

The respondent reviewed the Support Services Division during 2016 because of poor trading and cost control measures. The tribunal found that the claimant’s duties had diminished after John Adam left, that Mr Anderson could absorb some work and the Central Administration Team could absorb the rest, and that there was a genuine redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant’s post was a standalone role and that the requirement for the work to be done by a full-time person in that post had diminished.

Consultation began on 30 November 2016 and continued through meetings on 2 December 2016 and 18 January 2017, followed by an appeal heard by Collieson Briggs on 8 February 2017. The tribunal rejected the argument that the process was a sham or that dismissal had been predetermined. It found the claimant understood the restructuring proposal, including that her duties would be split between the administration team and Mr Anderson, but she disagreed with the business decision and did not advance workable alternatives. It also found that the respondent did not expressly explain the full cost-saving rationale until later, but that this did not make the consultation unfair.

The claimant was offered a part-time Travel Support Administrator role at a gross salary of £12,113.92, which the respondent accepted was not suitable alternative employment under section 141 ERA 1996. The tribunal nonetheless found the offer reasonable, including because it was made non-competitively and with a trial period, and it found the claimant was reasonable to refuse it because of the pay reduction. The tribunal noted that she received three months’ pay in lieu of notice of £7,508.12 and a statutory redundancy payment of £2,874, and it held that the dismissal was fair and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.