EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no. 4102780/2016 held at Aberdeen on 20, and February 2017 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Members: Ms E Coyle Ms G Powell Mr Kenneth Martin Pinkard v Respondent — 2017

The Claimant, a long-serving assistant offshore construction manager, was selected for redundancy from a pool of nine AOCMs during a 2015 redundancy exercise. The tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that it was reasonable to identify the AOCMs as a separate pool. It also held that the selection criteria were appropriate and that the Respondent was entitled to use a scoring matrix containing both objective and subjective elements.

At the initial scoring stage, Ms Zhuravleva scored the Claimant with input from Mr Gordon. The tribunal found that the flexibility score of 0 was incorrect because the lowest available score was 1, and it was concerned that Ms Zhuravleva attached undue weight to negative comments from Mr Carr. It also found it unreasonable that Ms Zhuravleva and Mr Coulter refused to consider the material the Claimant submitted in challenge to his score on the basis that references and previous appraisals had not been used for others.

Mr Hay then carried out a further review in January 2016, increased the Claimant's scores for communication, teamwork and flexibility, and considered the evidence the Claimant had put forward. The tribunal held that this review addressed the earlier concerns and that Mr Hay had not been unduly influenced by Mr Carr's views. It therefore concluded that the Claimant's selection for redundancy after Mr Hay's review was not tainted by any protected disclosure. The tribunal said that, if it had been necessary to decide the point, the Claimant's complaints about diver monitoring and boat-drill timing would have amounted to protected disclosures relating to health and safety.

The appeal process was criticised because Mr Paterson did not have all of the material that had been before Mr Hay, including the relevant emails from Mr Carr, and because the appeal was effectively being heard by a person within the same management structure. However, that did not make the dismissal unfair when the process was viewed as a whole. Both the unfair dismissal claim and the automatically unfair dismissal claim were dismissed and no award was made.