Case 8000092/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J McLean v Vallourec Oil & Gas UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000092/2025
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J McLean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J McLean worked for Vallourec Oil & Gas UK Ltd from 28 October 2019 until her dismissal took effect on 11 April 2025. She had fibromyalgia, which the tribunal accepted was a disability, and the evidence was that it restricted her mobility so that working from home enabled her to perform her Financial Assistant role. The respondent carried out a redundancy exercise in 2024 as part of a wider restructure that closed the Bridge of Don facility, moved remaining operations to Aberdeen, and reduced the finance team.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal within section 139 ERA 1996, but held that the respondent failed to act reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that collective consultation did not begin when the plans were still formative, that the claimant and employee representatives were not given enough information about the proposed finance-team structure, and that the individual consultation was too late and too limited to allow meaningful engagement. The tribunal also found that alternatives were not properly explored and that the appeal did not remedy the defects.
The disability discrimination claims failed. For the section 13 claim, the tribunal found there was no basis for saying the claimant was selected for redundancy because of disability, and that a comparator would most likely have fared the same. For the section 15 claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal was unfavourable treatment and that the claimant's need to work from home was something arising in consequence of disability, but held the respondent had proved a different explanation: it genuinely believed she lacked the experience and qualifications needed for the revised Financial Accountant role, and the decision was not based on her mobility limits.
The judgment was liability-only. The tribunal said the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, and directed her to confirm whether she wanted a remedy hearing and to provide an updated schedule of loss if so. No monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal but held the respondent did not act reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996 in the way it conducted the consultation and dismissal process. Liability only; remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 EqA 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of disability, and considered that a hypothetical comparator would most likely have been treated the same. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EqA 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted the claimant's need to work from home arose from disability, but found the respondent had shown a different reason for dismissal: it genuinely believed she lacked the experience and qualifications required for the revised Financial Accountant role. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.15 EqA 2010
- Williams and others v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Price
- De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK 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.