Mr A McNiven v Stena Drilling Ltd and Others: 2206162/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant was employed by the Third Respondent and assigned to the Stena Forth, a vessel constituting an “establishment” for the purposes of section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[2]The Third Respondent did not propose to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within a period of 90 days or less at the establishment where the Claimant worked. Accordingly, there was no obligation on the Third Respondent to consult on a collective basis pursuant to section 188(1).[3]The claim is dismissed against the Second Respondent on withdrawal.[4]The claim is dismissed against the First and Fourth Respondents on the basis that since they were not the Claimant’s employer, the claims against them stand no reasonable prospect of success.[5]The Claimant’s remaining complaints against the Third and Fifth Respondents proceed to a full Hearing. Separate case management orders are made in this regard. Employment Judge Norris 5 May 2021 06/05/2021 For the Tribunal: Note: Reasons for the decision having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is received from any party within 14 days of the sending of this record of the decision.