Claimant v Aramark Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of genuine redundancy, that the respondent followed a fair consultation process, applied reasonable selection criteria (scoring matrix), placed the claimant in an appropriate pool under the Total Field Agreement, and made efforts to find alternative employment. The claimant's lower score was due to a Performance Improvement Plan in the previous 12 months. The selection fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Facts
Mr Edwards was employed as an Offshore Maintenance Technician (Electrical) by Aramark Ltd, working on Total Energies' Alwyn/Dunbar oil rig. In September 2024, Total instructed Aramark to reduce the number of Maintenance Technicians on the Elgin rig from two to one. Under the Total Field Agreement with trade unions, all five technicians across the Total field were placed in a redundancy pool. Mr Edwards scored lowest on the selection matrix due to a Performance Improvement Plan in the previous 12 months and was dismissed on 18 November 2024. He appealed, arguing he should not have been in the pool as he worked on the Alwyn, not the Elgin, and that his exclusion from a training course suggested pre-selection. The appeal was unsuccessful.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the dismissal was for genuine redundancy and was fair. The tribunal accepted that the Total Field Agreement required the whole field to be placed at risk, making the pool selection reasonable. The respondent followed a fair consultation process, applied objective selection criteria, and sought alternative employment. The claimant's selection fell within the band of reasonable responses available to a reasonable employer.
Practical note
An employer can rely on a collective agreement with trade unions to define the redundancy pool across multiple work sites, and a tribunal will uphold fair selection within that pool even if the redundancy arises from reduced requirements at only one site.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000270/2025
- Decision date
- 8 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Aramark Ltd
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Offshore Maintenance Technician (Electrical)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No