Redundancy Selection Criteria

In the current economic climate, many employers are facing the difficult task of selecting employees for redundancy. This is an area where the law allows employers a certain amount of leeway. Tribunals will not subject the selection process to microscopic analysis. However, the recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in E-Zec Medical Transport Service Limited v Gregory reminds employers that there are limits to their freedom to decide upon the method of selection. If he is to avoid liability for unfair dismissal, an employer must be in a position to show, in broad terms, that the selection process adopted was fair and reasonable.

G was employed as an administrator and ambulance driver by E-Zec. Faced with a downturn in work, E-Zec decided to restructure the site at which G worked. On 27 November 2006, an initial announcement was made concerning the possibility of redundancies. Two employees responded to an appeal for voluntary redundancies. E-Zec then identified a need to make four employees redundant from a pool of 14, which included G. The senior HR manager devised a selection process, identifying nine selection criteria. He dealt with four of these – service, absence,, sickness days, sickness occasions and discipline – himself, awarding the employees marks based on information contained in the employees’ personnel files. However, the remaining criteria – performance, commitment and attitude, skill base and team working – were marked by the regional manager solely on the basis of his experience of working with the employees. On 8 January 2007, G was called to a meeting, told the marks she had been awarded and given a letter confirming that she was at risk of redundancy. At a further meeting on 12 January 2007, G was given a letter confirming her dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal held that G had been unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed E-Zec’s appeal. E-Zec had made no attempt to consult with the unions or employees as to the method of selection. The regional manager had assessed five of the key criteria on an entirely subjective basis. He was unable to support his marking by reference to performance appraisals or similar materials and had failed to liaise with other managers concerning the marking. In such circumstances, the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to take the view that the procedure adopted was not one which a reasonable employer would have adopted.

If you would like to know more about this case or about handling redundancies generally, please contact Nick Crook or Gareth Pobjoy.

Filed: 29/11/2008 18:31:25