Mr D Kidd and Others v Oil States Industries (UK) Ltd: 4105163/2016 and Others
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2017 |
| Citation | 4105163/2016 and Others |
| Published date | 02 May 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Nos: S/4105163/16, S/4105162/16, S/4105601/16
5 Held in Glasgow on 22, 23, 24 & 28 March 2017
Employment Judge: F Jane Garvie
10
1. Mr David Kidd 1st Claimant
Represented by:
Mr J O`Donnell -
Solicitor 15
2. Mr Paul McCabe 2nd Claimant
Represented by:
Mr J O`Donnell - 20 Solicitor
3. Mr Iain MacMillan 3rd Claimant
Represented by: 25 Mr J O`Donnell -
Solicitor
30
Oil States Industries (UK) Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Ms L Marsh -
Advocate 35 Instructed by:
Mr J D Chalmers –
Solicitor
40 JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that these claims should be dismissed.
45
REASONS
S/4105163/16, S/4105162/16, S/4105601/16
Page
2
Background
1. These claims were combined and originally each claimant was separately
represented. Mr O`Donnell became the representative for all 3 claimants
shortly before the Final Hearing commenced. The claims were lodged 5
separately for each claimant given they were at the time represented by 3
different solicitors. The respondents lodged responses for each of the
claims. Employment Judge Ian McPherson directed that the claims should
be considered together and an Order to that effect was issued dated 9
November 2016. There is then a further Order issued by Employment 10
Judge Nicol Hosie dated 23 January 2017 which refers to the 3 claimants
whereas Judge McPherson referred only to the first and second claimants.
In relation to the third claimant a complaint of unfair dismissal was
withdrawn and a judgment to that effect was issued on 29 November 2016.
An Order was issued by Judge Hosie dated 9 December 2016, directing 15
the claimants to provide, amongst other things, a quantification of how their
claims were calculated and directing that the Final Hearing would take
place before an Employment Judge Sitting Alone.
2. The parties provided 3 agreed bundles of productions. They are separately 20
tabbed so that, for example, the first item being the claim for the second
claimant is set out under Tab 1 at pages 4-5 and so forth. For ease of
reference in this judgment, the documents are referred to only by page
number not also the Tab number.
25
The Final Hearing
3. At the start of the Final Hearing the representatives explained that they had
prepared a Statement of Agreed Facts. Below this there is a heading
entitled, “Methodology” although it was explained that the Agreed Facts 30
were not entirely agreed and so where there was disagreement the
claimants had added in red ink additional facts which they offered to prove
and which were not agreed by the respondent.
S/4105163/16, S/4105162/16, S/4105601/16
Page
3
4. The claimants each gave evidence and evidence was given on behalf of
the respondent by Mr Neville Gall who is the respondent’s Area HR
Manager.
5. Very little of the evidence in this case was in dispute and as will be seen 5
below the issue for determination is set out in the very detailed closing
submissions provided by the representatives. In addition, both
representatives referred the Tribunal to a considerable number of
authorities. The submissions were heard on Tuesday 28 March 2017, it
having been agreed that the representatives wished to address the 10
Tribunal orally. In addition, the representatives agreed to provide their
submissions in writing and these are set out as they were provided in
written format. Both representatives addressed the Tribunal on their
written submissions on 28 March 2017 in order to amplify some of the
points set out by them as well as to make specific reference to the various 1 5
authorities to which they referred.
Findings of Fact
6. The Tribunal found the following essential facts to have been established 20
or agreed.
7. The respondent engages in the provision of products for the oil industry. It
operates worldwide with facilities in many countries. In May 2014 the
respondent announced the construction of a new manufacturing facility at 2 5
Heartlands, West Lothian, (referred to as “Heartlands”). This would
ultimately result in the closure of the respondent’s existing facility at Altens,
Aberdeen which was long established. The respondent recognised two
unions there, Unite and GMB. During May 2014 the respondent
commenced relocation consultation with its workforce in Aberdeen and 30
Notes of a meeting held on 22 May 2014, (pages 133) were provided.
Regular meetings were held and copies of these were issued, (pages 133
to page 199 inclusive). Two union representatives are mentioned as
To continue reading
Request your trial