Marsh v B/E Aerospace (UK) Ltd  (Unfair Dismissal)  (18 December 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	01029/00 

APPLICANTS:		Robert J Marsh

RESPONDENT:		B/E Aerospace (UK) Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant, Mr Robert J Marsh, was employed by the respondent and was dismissed by the respondent on grounds of redundancy. The dismissal of the applicant by the respondent was not unfair. The applicant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is dismissed, without further Order.

Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Mr Gary Purvis, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Edwards & Co, Solicitors 
The respondent was represented by Mr Ralph Murphy of Engineering Employers Federation 

The reasons are given in summary form. 

BACKGROUND TO THE MATTER

1.	The applicant was one of ten applicants in a consolidated matter. The cases of the other applicants were heard and determined and the applicant’s case was adjourned for a separate hearing. In his Originating Application, the applicant contended that he was an employee of the respondent company, and that he was dismissed, and that his dismissal was unfair, and that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy. 

THE TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS 

In consequence of the written and oral evidence adduced before it the Tribunal found the following facts:-

2.	The applicant was employed by the respondent company, which company carried on a manufacturing business in the Aerospace Industry from premises in Kilkeel, County Down. This employment commenced on 31st August of 1998. In the latter part of 1999 the respondent took a decision to make part of its workforce redundant.  Consultation took place with appointed trade union representatives and redundancy selection criteria were identified.  These criteria were (i) timekeeping; (ii) absence; and (iii) disciplinary record.

3.	The respondent extracted relevant information from the company’s records and, after a scoring exercise had been conducted, a number of employees in the selected part of the workforce identified for redundancy were categorised as being ‘at risk’.  The company then conducted interviews with these employees, who included amongst their number the applicant.  After the relevant scores derived from the points system concerning the selection criteria were put to the applicant, he was asked if he wished to put forward mitigating circumstances which he felt ought to be considered by the respondent.  The applicant put forward for consideration by the respondent certain facts relating to a medical condition from which he suffered, and certain other matters. Any representations made by the applicant were then considered and further investigated by the respondent, especially in regard to the issue of whether or not the applicant was suffering from a disability. Medical opinion was sought by the respondent. The view was subsequently taken by the respondent that no special considerations arising from any possible disability needed to be addressed in the applicant’s case. As the applicant’s scoring against the selection criteria was above the relevant threshold, the applicant was then informed that he had been selected for redundancy.  He was then dismissed with effect from 28th February 2000, having received any outstanding wages due and basic statutory redundancy pay.

THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

4.	The applicant in these proceedings has lodged a complaint alleging unfair dismissal.  An employee has a right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer under Article 126(1) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, unless the employer can show that the dismissal is fair for one of the reasons set out in Article 130 of the said Order.  One such reason is redundancy. Redundancy is the reason stated by the respondent for these dismissals. The Tribunal accepts that there were proper and valid grounds for dismissal of employees on account of redundancy and that the redundancy selection criteria were chosen by the respondent properly and for good cause, and that the chosen criteria were objectively fair. The issue therefore is whether or not there was fair application of the redundancy selection criteria to the applicant and whether the process of selection and of dismissal of the applicant was, in overall terms, fair. 

5.	Having examined the facts relating to the application of the chosen redundancy selection criteria to the applicant and, in general terms, the process of selection and dismissal insofar as that process related to the applicant, the Tribunal is of the view that there was no unfairness done to the applicant. The Tribunal finds that the respondent’s approach to the matter was fair and measured, and that any material issues were adequately and fairly addressed. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was dismissed by the respondent on grounds of redundancy and that the application of the redundancy selection criteria to the applicant’s case and the process of selection of the applicant to be dismissed upon grounds of redundancy were fair and proper to such a degree as to preclude the applicant from being successful in his complaint of unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the applicant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is dismissed, without further Order.

Chairman:

Date: 

Date and place of hearing:

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: