Redundancy Selection – Subjective Performance Assessment is Not Enough

Conducting a fair redundancy process requires a careful, almost forensic approach and it is almost never good enough for employers to rely on a subjective assessment of an employee’s past performance. An Employment Tribunal (ET) succinctly made that point in upholding an IT engineer’s unfair…

Dec 29, 2021

A small company needed to make cost savings due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided that one of its two IT engineers should be made redundant. A selection process was conducted whereby the engineers were scored on matters ranging from their technical skills to their drive and motivation and customer feedback about them. The engineer who scored lower was dismissed.

There was no dispute that a genuine redundancy situation had arisen. In upholding the man’s complaint, however, the ET found that there was a failure to consult with him meaningfully prior to his dismissal. There was only one consultation meeting, at an early stage in the process, and he was not informed of the full selection criteria. It was not explained to him how his score had been arrived at.

He had very little input into the inherently vague and unclear selection criteria. The end result depended largely on his boss’s subjective assessment. All the criteria, save for attendance levels, were based on her unchallengeable opinion as marker, rather than by reference to any objective evidence. She accepted that she had been influenced by factors that lay outside the strict ambit of the selection criteria, particularly his perceived reluctance to use MS Teams. He was not marked against the selection criteria as properly understood or applied appropriately.

The ET noted that the whole exercise was redolent of a dismissal for performance, capability and past conduct issues. The selection process was unreasonable in that it had, in effect, been used as a guise to weed out what the company considered to be a poor-performing employee. If not agreed, the amount of the man’s compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Farmers Fined After Man Killed by Herd of Cows

Two farmers have been fined for failing to protect members of the public from their cattle following an incident in which a man was killed by a herd of cows while out running with his two dogs. The man, a father-of-three and former teacher, was crossing a public right of way over a field belonging to the farmers when he was surrounded by cows. He was knocked to the ground, and one of the cows then ran towards him, causing a fatal blow to his chest. An investigation by the Health and Safety…

School Inspector Sacked for Touching Pupil Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

It is obviously impractical for employers to have in place disciplinary policies that set out each and every form of frowned-upon conduct. However, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling showed, employees are generally entitled to some forewarning of the types of behaviour that may result in immediate dismissal. The case involved a school inspector who, during an inspection visit, encountered a group of pupils who had come in soaking from the rain. He brushed water from the hair or…

Whistleblowing Nurse’s Dismissal ‘Grossly Unfair’, Tribunal Rules

There are few things more serious in an employment context than sacking a whistleblower for performing a valuable public service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a highly regarded nurse who was treated grossly unfairly for doing what she considered to be her duty. The nurse had an unblemished employment record stretching to 38 years and had received commendations for her leadership skills, positivity and enthusiasm. On a number of occasions, she expressed…