Case 4107983/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Reid v Alba Ultrasound Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 4107983/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Reid
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that a redundancy situation existed within section 139 ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent’s business had suffered a substantial drop in orders after the COVID-19 lockdown, including the cancellation of its largest client’s orders, and that the requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had diminished. The dismissal was therefore caused wholly or mainly by redundancy rather than any other reason.
On fairness, the tribunal held that the respondent had identified a proper selection pool in production, including the assembly technicians, and that the claimant’s duties in grit blasting and pressure testing did not remove him from that pool. It accepted that the selection criteria of attendance and the April 2019 appraisal were objectively based, that attendance was fact-based, and that the appraisal was completed before any redundancy exercise began. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the appraisal records had been manipulated or that he had been targeted because of his relationship with Mr McMurdo or because of his inability to do gluing work.
The tribunal also found that consultation was adequate. The claimant and other affected employees were warned of the risk of redundancy, consulted on 11 August 2020 and again on 20 August 2020, given the scoring matrix, allowed to raise concerns and counterproposals, and offered an appeal. It accepted that there were no suitable alternative vacancies. The appeal was conducted by Mr Whitely, who considered the points raised and did not uphold the appeal.
Applying the statutory test under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Williams v Compair Maxam, Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding, Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell, Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd, and Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that a previous decision had found the claimant was not disabled within the Equality Act 2010, so the remaining claim before it was unfair dismissal only. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams and others v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding
- Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell
- Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.