Mr A Gray v Oil States Industries (UK) Limited — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant, Mr A Gray, was dismissed for redundancy and that the respondent had shown a genuine redundancy situation. It accepted that the respondent’s business had reduced its requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind because of the Covid-19 pandemic and the downturn in the oil price, and that the claimant’s dismissal was wholly or mainly caused by that diminution in work.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that he should not have been pooled with the Grinders. It found that his principal role throughout employment was Grinder, even though he also carried out some fitter and cutting work. On that basis, it held that the respondent had acted reasonably in selecting the pool of Grinders, and that the selection criteria used were objective and reasonable. The claimant’s score was revised during consultation by adding credit for high pressure washing and discounting recent absence, but he remained the lowest scoring employee in the pool.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had given adequate warning and consultation. It had consulted the recognised trade union, sought volunteers, notified staff of the redundancy situation, held three consultation meetings with the claimant, and offered him the opportunity to challenge his selection and scoring. It found that there were no alternative vacancies available. Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the redundancy guidance in Polkey, it concluded that the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal added, although it was not necessary to the outcome, that the disciplinary process leading to the claimant’s final written warning was fair and that the sanction fell within the band of reasonable responses.