The claimant was employed as a General Operative but was subsequently made redundant after almost 3 years working for the respondent. The main issues for the tribunal to deal with were whether the claimant had been unfairly selected for redundancy and also the claimant’s assertion that there was no redundancy situation at the date of his dismissal. 

The claimant, alongside three other colleagues, was invited to a redundancy consultation meeting and he later requested the ‘scores’ given to his other colleagues and complained that he had not been given the opportunity to challenge his own particular rating. He further alleged that the respondent failed to award him scores for other factors such as tasks completed in work. 

The tribunal accepted that a redundancy situation existed but was unequivocal that the respondent had not properly taken preliminary steps before moving to compulsory redundancy. There was also a stark omission to explain the scores awarded and, further, no opportunity was given to verify the scores awarded through a satisfactory interview process. 

In totality, the tribunal perceived the respondent’s interviewing procedure to be flawed- and there existed a real possibility that the outcome of the process could have been different if it had have been conducted properly. In finding the dismissal unfair, it was held that the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and that the respondent failed to use a ‘proper objective procedure.’

* PRACTICAL LESSONS

The tribunal was unimpressed with the flawed interview scoring system adopted by the respondent and the mismanagement of the overall redundancy scheme. There was a litany of errors on behalf of the respondent which in totality should act as a reminder to employers about the importance of adherence to ‘Labour Relations Agency’s Code of Practice on Redundancy Procedures’. 

In particular, a well-thought out scoring system that has a logical basis will be paramount. In the present case the respondent attempted to defend a ‘binary scoring system’ at interview i.e. whether the employee either had the particular qualification or did not, when in actual fact the scoring indicated that points were able to be awarded.