E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000270/2025 (V)5 Held on and June 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr M Edwards v Aramark Ltd — 2025

Mr Edwards claimed unfair dismissal following his dismissal by Aramark Ltd on 18 November 2024. The respondent accepted that he had been dismissed, but maintained that the reason was redundancy. The tribunal found that Total had instructed a reduction in MDE/Maintenance Technician numbers and that the circumstances fell within the statutory definition of redundancy under s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996, so the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and was an admissible reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had pooled all OMTEs and MDEs on the Total oil rigs because the roles were essentially the same and because the Total Field Agreement provided that when a redundancy situation occurred the whole field would be placed at risk. It found that the pool of five technicians, including Mr Edwards, and the scoring criteria used to select for redundancy were within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The tribunal noted that Mr Edwards had the lowest score, largely because of a recent performance improvement plan, but found the scoring process itself was reasonable.

On procedure, the tribunal found that Mr Edwards was warned in good time, consulted individually, given the opportunity to make representations, and then given an appeal heard by a different manager. It accepted the evidence that alternative employment was considered but no suitable role was available. The tribunal also found no evidence that the selection was prejudged, and it held that Mr Edwards’ non-attendance at the HOIT training course was not a factor in the redundancy selection. Applying the s.98(4) ERA 1996 fairness test and the authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the claim.