D Haughey v Prosafe Offshore Employment Company PTE Ltd: 4111228/2019
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Citation | 4111228/2019 |
| Published date | 20 May 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4111228/2019 (V)
Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 15 October 2020 and 7 January 2021
Employment Judge: M Sutherland
5
Daniel Haughey Claimant
Represented by:
Mr A Webster
(Counsel instructed by
Newtons Solicitor Ltd)
10
Prosafe Offshore Employment Company PTE Limited
Respondent
Represented by:
15
Mr A Knight
(Solicitor)
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
20
The judgment of the Tribunal is that –
1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s complaint of
breach of contract related to enhanced redundancy pay which is accordingly
dismissed.
2. The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s complaints of unfair
25
dismissal, statutory redundancy pay and unlawful deduction from wages.
REASONS
1. The Claimant has lodged complaints of unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy
pay, breach of contract related to enhanced redundancy pay, and ‘other
payments’ understood to be for unlawful deduction from wages. An open
30
E.T.Z4(WR)
4111228/2019 (V) Page 2
2. preliminary hearing was arranged for today to determine international
jurisdiction (whether the employment tribunal was the relevant forum); the
applicable law (relating to his complaint for breach of contract) and territorial
reach (whether the statutory complaints fell within the territorial scope of
relevant statutory provisions).
5
3. The Claimant was represented by Mr A Webster of Counsel. The Respondent
was represented by Mr A Knight, Solicitor.
4. Parties had prepared a statement of agreed facts. Donna Leslie, HR Director
gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Claimant gave evidence on
10
his own behalf.
5. Parties had prepared a joint bundle of documents.
6. The parties lodged skeleton arguments and made oral legal submissions. The
parties had not prepared a list of issues.
7. During submissions an issue arose with the statement of agreed facts as to
15
whether the Claimant was working onshore in Norway rather than on a vessel
in the Norwegian Sector a specified period. Following discussion, it was greed
that parties would have 14 days in which to agree a variation failing which the
previously agreed terms would continue to apply. No variation was agreed.
Findings of Fact
20
8. The Claimant is a UK national. His home address throughout his employment
with the Respondent was in England. The Claimant was employed by the
Respondent from 14 January 2011 until 26 June 2019 as a Maintenance
Engineer.
9. During his employment with the Respondent the Claimant worked aboard
25
accommodation vessels in the North Sea. The accommodation vessels are
used by the offshore oil and gas industry to provide sleeping and other welfare
facilities for those working on board drilling installations. The drilling
installations were attached to either the Norwegian or UK Sector of the
To continue reading
Request your trial