Mr David Rainey Lead v Represented by: Mr R Clarke Solicitor Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd — 2021

This case arose from Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd's response to the early COVID-19 period, including a proposed 50% pay reduction for April and May 2020. The second claimant no longer contended after the evidence that he had qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so the tribunal's merits decision addressed the remaining automatic unfair dismissal issues under sections 100(1)(c), 104(1)(b) and 105(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that 15 employees were dismissed on 7 April 2020, including both claimants, after they had objected to the proposed contractual changes.

On section 104(1)(b), the tribunal held that the First Objection Letter and Second Objection Letter were objections to proposed contractual pay cuts, not assertions that the respondent had already made an unlawful deduction from wages. The claimants accepted in evidence that no deduction had yet been made because wages were not due until 28 April 2020. Applying the authorities cited in the judgment, including Mennell and Spaceman, the tribunal found that the statutory right not to suffer unlawful deductions had not been asserted in the required sense and that the reason for dismissal was not that right.

On section 100(1)(c), the tribunal found that the first claimant may have sent an email on 24 March 2020 raising health and safety matters, but it was not produced and was likely covered by the later union correspondence. The second claimant accepted that he did not raise health and safety issues with the respondent himself, and the tribunal was not satisfied that either claimant brought circumstances connected with their work to the respondent's attention by reasonable means in the statutory sense. It further found that the dismissal reason was the respondent's need to make financial savings and preserve short-term viability, not the alleged health and safety complaints.

On section 105(1), the tribunal found that the selection for redundancy was primarily based on length of service, and that the respondent had reviewed employees with less than two years' service and trainees when looking for rapid cost savings. The tribunal accepted that withholding consent to the pay reduction was a factor in the selection, but it was not satisfied that the claimants had asserted a statutory right or that the selection was because of health and safety concerns. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.