ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105231/2016 Hearing at Aberdeen on and March 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Paul Hayworth v Respondent — 2017

The claimant was employed by Alba Power Ltd from 18 May 2008 and was dismissed with effect from 17 June 2016. He brought a single claim of unfair dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had experienced serious financial difficulty in 2016, including cashflow problems and losses, and that management decided to reduce headcount as part of cost-cutting measures. It held that this provided a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the requirements of the business for the work carried out by the claimant had diminished within section 139(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found that the claimant occupied a distinct role within the project engineering department. It accepted evidence that he had been promoted to Lead Project Engineer, had supervisory responsibilities over project engineers, and had been given management training. Although the job profiles for the engineers were broadly similar, the tribunal considered that the claimant was senior to them and was therefore in a different position from the ordinary project engineers. On that basis, it held that the respondent was justified in treating his role as unique or "standalone" and that it was within the range of reasonable responses to identify him for redundancy without pooling him with the other engineers.

The tribunal also found that consultation was meaningful. There were meetings on 31 May, 7 June, 14 June and 17 June 2016, and the claimant was invited to suggest ways of avoiding redundancy, including reduced hours, salary cuts, recruitment freezes and voluntary redundancy. The tribunal accepted that those suggestions were considered but were not thought sufficient to bring costs down to the level required. It found no evidence that any alternative posts were available and rejected the submission that the respondent had failed to consider suitable alternative employment. It was also not persuaded by the alternative argument that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, describing that as an ex post facto justification.

The claimant appealed against dismissal, but the appeal was not upheld. The tribunal concluded that the respondent dismissed him fairly by reason of redundancy, followed a fair process, and paid the sums due on termination, including redundancy pay and contractual payments. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.