ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Combined Cases Nos: 4114960/2019, 4114961/2019 and 4114962/2019 (Multiple 9251) Heard at Edinburgh on the th, th, th, July 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Tribunal Member Ms Martha McAllister Tribunal Member Mr Trevor Jones William Blount st v Represented by: Mr I Burke, Solicitor Wood Group Industrial Services Limited — 2021

Mr Blount, Mrs Dair and Mr Yates were employed at the respondent's Rosyth site and were dismissed in the 2019 redundancy process after the QEC contract for the aircraft carriers came to an end. The tribunal found that the respondent was facing a genuine redundancy situation, that the claimants were dismissed for redundancy, and that the relevant decision-making took place against the background of a substantial reduction in non-QEC marine work at Rosyth.

The age discrimination complaints by Mr Blount and Mrs Dair were dismissed. The tribunal did not need to make a finding on the disputed remark said to have been made by Mr Westhall. It held that, even if the remark had been made, the claimants had not proved the required causal link between age and the treatment complained of. The tribunal accepted that Mr Westhall had no direct involvement in the 2019 redundancy decisions, including the composition of the pool and the internal appeal process.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent could lawfully compose the pool around the QEC workforce then engaged on the contract, rather than including the residual non-QEC marine workforce. It found that the historical practice of pooling all marine employees when a contract ended did not amount to a contractual custom and practice, and that the 2019 approach was agreed in collective consultation with Unite. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the pool composition, consultation process, and the respondent's refusal to remove the claimants from the pool and return them to residual marine work were reasonable in the circumstances.

The tribunal noted consultation issues raised by the claimants, including the scope of refresher training and difficulties accessing the vacancy list, but held that these criticisms did not render the dismissals unfair when the process was viewed as a whole. The complaints of unfair dismissal were therefore dismissed. Because the claims failed, remedy did not arise; the tribunal recorded only that, had unfair dismissal been established, it would have expected the claimants to find alternative work within six months and would not have made a Polkey deduction on the evidence before it.