Case 4107885/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Curley v SR Technics UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107885/2021
- Decision date
- 9 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Curley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that SR Technics UK Limited’s business suffered a severe reduction in work from early 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that the claimant’s dismissal on 26 October 2020 was by reason of redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent had to reduce costs and adjust staffing levels as flight activity fell, and that the claimant’s case was therefore one of redundancy rather than any other reason.
The respondent had carried out a collective redundancy exercise with Unite, including consultation meetings in July and August 2020, agreed redundancy pools, agreed selection criteria, and individual consultation. The claimant was placed in the Shift Leader pool, scored 57, and finished fifth of seven Shift Leaders. The tribunal accepted the scoring framework as objective and reasonable, including the use of licence type, approval type, standard of work, additional skills, attendance, disciplinary record and commitment to work.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that his 2019 grievance against a colleague influenced the process. It found no evidence that the grievance affected pooling, scoring, or dismissal, and no credible indication of bias. It also accepted the respondent’s explanation for the score reductions and increases applied to the claimant, and held that the decisions about pooling and post-scoring placement of staff were within the range of reasonable employer responses.
On alternative employment, the tribunal found there were no suitable vacancies to offer the claimant once he was provisionally selected for redundancy. It held that it was reasonable for Mr Fantauzzi to ask other group companies about vacancies and then leave matters when no useful openings were identified. The tribunal also found it was not unreasonable not to re-engage the claimant in late 2020 either to extend furlough or to facilitate a future TUPE transfer to EasyJet. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore refused and no compensation calculation was required.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. No compensation was assessed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard
- Taymech Ltd v Ryan
- Kvaerner Oil and Gas Ltd v Parker
- British Aerospace plc v Green
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.