100 redundancies became inevitable. Pools of employees from which the selection would be made were created on an area basis. Workers in each pool were assessed for productivity, skill, quality of work, attendance, punctuality and sickness records by the worker’s manager, and the assessment rechecked. The board had set the weightings for each criterion overall. The applicant was selected and given an opportunity to discuss his selection with management. He asked for details of the assessments of other employees from his pool who had not been selected, but whom he regarded as more obvious candidates than himself for redundancy. That disclosure was refused, his dismissal went ahead, and he complained to an Industrial Tribunal that the refusal had made his dismissal unfair. He appealed to the EAT.
Held: the appeal failed. A practice of allowing employees selected for redundancy to see the assessments of those employees who had not been so selected would involve, especially in cases where the numbers were large, an impossibly protracted exercise, offensive to commonsense and practicality and threatening to stultify the intended fairness of the whole selection process.
Citations:
[1994] UKEAT 515 – 92 – 0706
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – British Aerospace plc v Green and Others CA 18-Apr-1995
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees.
Held: It was wrong to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209961