E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000150/20225 Held at Aberdeen on April and June 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr C Hunt v Baker Hughes — 2023

Mr Hunt said he was employed by Baker Hughes, but the tribunal found he was employed by International Professional Resources Ltd (IPRL), a company incorporated in the DIFC and part of the Baker Hughes group. He had signed a contract of employment with IPRL with effect from 4 November 2018, after transfer from Baker Hughes Ltd, and the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that IPRL, not Baker Hughes, was the employer. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence inconsistent in some respects and preferred the evidence of Fernando Jose Estrada Hidalgo.

Applying the jurisdictional rules in s.15C of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and the territorial scope authorities, including Lawson, Ravat, Hottak, Weber, Mahamdia and Olsen, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. IPRL was not domiciled in the UK, the claimant did not habitually work in the UK, the business which engaged him was not situated in the UK, and there was no UK branch, agency or establishment from which the dispute arose. The tribunal also found there was no agreement to litigate in the UK and that the connections with Great Britain were outweighed by connections elsewhere.

For completeness, the tribunal also considered strike out under Rule 37(1)(a). On unfair dismissal, it accepted the respondent's case that the claimant had taken alternative employment on 9 January 2023 and could not establish that he had been dismissed. On race discrimination, the tribunal said the pleaded comparators did not establish less favourable treatment because of race, and when the claimant's comparator case changed at the hearing it was not properly specified and would have required amendment, which the tribunal would not have allowed. On the arrears of pay / unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal said no legal basis had been set out and the claimant had not shown that the sums claimed were properly payable within s.13(3) ERA 1996. No remedy was awarded.