Unfair Redundancy: Competent Selection?
Meredith Hurst Friday, May 3, 2013
Redundancy is becoming more and more common in the current climate. Whilst a number of recent Employment Tribunal decisions have made it a lot more difficult for employees to challenge redundancy selection, in Mental Healthcare (UK) Ltd v Biluanthe Employment Appeal Tribunal was critical of an employer who selected employees for redundancy on the basis of a series of competency tests normally used in the context of recruitment.
In a redundancy case, an Employment Tribunal must consider whether the decision to dismiss an employee was reasonable in the circumstances.
In order for a redundancy dismissal to be fair an employer must:
- Warn and consult employees or their representatives about the proposed redundancies.
- Adopt a fair basis on which to select for redundancy. An employer must identify an appropriate pool from which to select potentially redundant employees and must select against proper criteria, which should, as far as possible, be objective and capable of independent verification.
- An employer must consider suitable alternative employment. An employer must search for and, if it is available, offer suitable alternative employment within its organisation.
In theBiluancase the employee was a nurse at a residential hospital. The hospital management identified a need to close one of its wards, resulting in 19 redundancies. It decided to treat the pool for redundancy as all the nursing staff at the hospital. 58 staff were placed at risk and told that they will be subjected to a 30 day consultation period.
The selection process involved consideration of three criteria: a competency assessment and consideration of disciplinary records and sickness absence records. These were weighted so that the competency assessment was given more importance than the other criteria. Due to this scoring system, the competency assessment proved decisive in most cases. This led to some very surprising results with the acting manager of the hospital admitting that some good workers were selected for redundancy.
Biluanand other employees brought successful unfair dismissal claims and the hospital appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that whilst the hospital had clearly taken a lot of trouble in constructing the selection procedure, it had been a mistake to choose an elaborate and HR driven method which deprived it of the benefit of input from managers and others who actually knew the staff in question. The EAT was critical of the "blind faith in process" which had in this case led to the employer losing touch with common sense and fairness.
This is one of the rare recent cases where an Employment Tribunal has been prepared to take a robust view in favour of the employee. The employer argued that the Employment Tribunal had substituted its view for that of the employer when deciding the appropriateness of the selection criteria. The EAT was not persuaded by this argument.
This is a reminder to employees that it is always worth challenging selection criteria adopted by an employer when considering whether a dismissal for redundancy is unfair. What we will say however, is that challenging selection criteria can be difficult. TheBiluancase is unusual precisely because of the unusual selection criteria that were used.
All Categories
Tags
- acas process
- Advicate General's Opinion
- age
- Andrew Brown
- anxiety
- Asda
- ASDA equal pay claims
- Ayodele v Citylink
- bear
- Bear Scotland
- benefits
- bereavement leave
- bonus
- bonuses
- Breach of Privacy
- breach of contract
- British Airways
- bullying
- burden of proof
- business conference
- business event
- capability
- capacity dismissal
- care industry
- care workers
- case law
- changes to employment law
- Chestertons v Nurmohamed
- Christmas
- CIPD
- CJEU
- Collective Consultation
- comparator
- Compensation
- compromise agreement
- conduct
- Constructive Dismissal
- contract of employment
- control
- court of appeal
- Court of Appeal
- David Gray Jones
- Deliveroo
- depression
- disability
- disability discrimination
- discrimination
- dismissal
- Dutch Property
- EAT
- ECJ
- Efobi v Royal Mail
- employment
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- employment law
- Employment Law
- employment law update
- employment rights
- employment status
- employment tribunal
- Employment tribunal fees
- Employment Tribunal Fees
- equal pay
- Equal Pay
- Essop
- fathers' rights
- fit for work
- Fries v Lufthansa
- gig economy
- GMB
- Government Legal Service v Brookes
- harassment
- headscarves
- holiday
- Holiday
- holiday pay
- HR
- HR professional
- Human Rights
- Immigration Law
- Immigration Law event
- indirect discrimination
- Inequality
- interview
- IOD event
- IOD London
- Jeff Bezos
- Jenna Ide
- Johnson exclusion
- Jonathan Mansfield
- Jose Mourinho
- Jose Mourinho's treatment of Chelsea doctor Eva Carneiro
- Kaltoft
- legal issues
- litigation
- Llama
- Lock v British Gas
- London
- London event
- Meerkat
- Mitchell v Marks and Spencer
- Monkey
- Naeem
- New York Times
- Obesity
- objective justification
- organised grouping
- paternity leave
- pay
- Pay
- perks
- Pimlico Plumbers
- probationary period
- Property Portfolio
- protected characteristic
- protected disclosure
- psychometric testing
- PTSD
- public interest
- Public Interest Disclosure Act
- race discrimination
- Rawlinson v Brightside
- reasonable adjustments
- refund
- retirement age
- Rynda
- self employed
- self-employed
- self-employment
- Selsdon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes
- seminar
- sleep in care workers
- Starbucks
- stress
- Supreme Court
- Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Limited
- time off
- time off work
- Transfer
- Transfer of Undertakings
- tribunal cases
- TUPE
- TUPE 2006
- TUPE 2014
- Uber
- Undertakings
- unfair dismissal
- Unfair Dismissal
- Unfair Dismissal.
- unpaid parental leave
- Walker v Sita
- worker
- workers
- workers' rights
- working conditons
- working time
- workplace dresscode
- workshop
- World Economic Forum
- Wrongful dismissal
- age discrimination
- Age discrimination
- Amazon
- Brexit
- Chelsea Football Club
- direct discrimination
- disability discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- discrimimation
- dresscode
- employment law
- Employment law
- Employment Law 2017
- employment status
- Employment Tribunal
- employment tribunal claims
- Employment Tribunal Reforms
- Gender Pay Gap
- General Election Conservative Employment Law Legislation Immigration Human Rights Act Work and Family Manifesto Zero Hours Contracts National Minimum Wage Trade Unions
- Hidden Disabilities
- holiday pay
- Holiday Pay
- indirect discrimination
- London Zoo
- National Minimum Wage
- parental leave
- recruitment
- Recruitment
- Redundancy
- Romania
- settlement agreement
- settlement agreements
- Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Limited
- time off for emergencies
- trust and confidence
- TUPE
- Uber
- unfair dismissal
- Unfair Dismissal
- Whistleblowing
- workers rights
Latest Comments
Archive
- 2018
- 2017
- 2016
-
2015
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- May
- April
-
February
- TUPE: Single employee can amount to an organised grouping - 25th February 2015
- Unfair dismissal and investigations - 24th February 2015
- Upcoming seminars / workshops in 2015 - 23rd February 2015
- The perks of old age? - 18th February 2015
- Holiday Pay - 18th February 2015
- Are the obese protected from disability discrimination? - 5th February 2015
- 2014
-
2013
- December
- November
- October
- September
-
August
- Not in my house you don’t! Bed and Breakfast and the Sexual Orientation Regulations - 7th August 2013
- Holiday pay and overtime: a logistical headache? - 7th August 2013
- Protected conversations – what does this change for employers? - 7th August 2013
- Introduction of Employment Tribunal Fees - 7th August 2013
- June
- May
- April
- February
- January
-
2012
- June
-
April
- Employment Law Changes – April 2012 - 16th April 2012
- Criminal Conduct in the Workplace - 16th April 2012
- Case Report – Teggart v TeleTech UK Limited - 16th April 2012
- Mediation – what part should it play in helping to resolve workplace disputes? - 16th April 2012
- What is the Employee’s last date of employment? - 16th April 2012
- March
- February
-
2011
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
-
February
- All aboard - 25th February 2011
- Time to train? - 22nd February 2011
- Crime does pay - 22nd February 2011
- Abolition of the default retirement age - 18th February 2011
- A bumpy ride - 11th February 2011
- Equality is good for business - 11th February 2011
- Are you being served? - 4th February 2011
- Don't miss out on our free retirement seminar - 9 March 2011! - 2nd February 2011
-
January
- Employment law shake-up announced - 28th January 2011
- Limit on tribunal awards to increase - 25th January 2011
- Paternity leave overhall - 20th January 2011
- CRB checks - 13th January 2011
- Default retirement age to be abolished - 13th January 2011
- Unfair dismissal rights set to change - 12th January 2011
- 2010
- 2009
0 Comments :