Employers reminded of importance of fair redundancy selection

Published: 20th November 2008

An Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment is a timely reminder of the importance of a fair, objective, and transparent redundancy selection process. In E-Zec Medical Transport Ltd v Gregory the redundancy was found to be an unfair dismissal where the selection scores given were not supported by tangible evidence.

Following a downturn in business, Ms Gregory was made redundant. It was accepted that four of the fourteen employed in the same role as Ms Gregory needed to be made redundant, but the tribunal found her dismissal to be unfair because of the consultation and selection criteria followed. The EAT have confirmed that this tribunal decision was correct because a tribunal must satisfy themselves that a fair system was in operation, albeit they should not subject the employer's marking system to "microscopic analysis".

The criticisms of the employer's process are a useful checklist of some key things to avoid when undertaking selection for redundancy:

• no genuine consultation was undertaken about the selection criteria being used, indeed Ms Gregory was simply told what criteria was being used without any proper explanation of how it would apply;
• a number of the scoring criteria used were described by the tribunal as being wholly subjective and incapable of objective measurement (in this context). These included: performance; commitment and attitude; skill base; and team working;
• a single manager undertook the scoring without any input from others (or even conversations with other managers);
• that scorer did not use any company documents or records (such as appraisals) to do the scoring, he relied upon his personal judgment "devoid of any verification by objective means" (as far as possible criteria should be capable of being objectively checked);
• the scorer did not make any notes about the scoring he gave or any indication of how he had reached his view (this obviously made it difficult for his scoring to be explained to the tribunal);
• the "consultation" process involved no genuine discussion about how redundancies could be avoided or about alternatives such as other employment in the company. This was highlighted by the fact that the decision letter had been written prior to the second/final consultation meeting, and was given to the employee when the meeting ended; and
• the person hearing the appeal did not speak to the scorer or establish how the scoring was done, and yet still reached the view that the scoring was fair and transparent.

If this decision or the points outlined raise any potential implications for your organisation or any redundancy process currently being undertaken, please telephone your usual contact in the Mace & Jones employment and HR team.