The applicants were four of 20 employees selected for redundancy. One complaint was that, although they had been given details of their own marks, they were no allowed to see the ratings for others; another was that the supervisors responsible for the markings were insufficiently informed to make fair assessments. These complaints were upheld by the Industrial Tribunal, which was also critical of the fact that the member of senior management called to justify the assessment results was unable to speak of the detailed merits of the assessments made of the applicants by the supervisors who had marked their forms. The employer appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Nothing suggested that the assessment process was carried out otherwise than honestly and reasonably: ‘In fact it appears to us that what the employers did in this case was to set up a good system of selection, reasonably administered. It may very well have been possible to argue about the individual markings of individual employees, but that is a comment which applies as much to the marking of those who were not selected for redundancy as to that of those who were. If the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal were carried to its logical conclusion, there could be no alternative but to require the employer, in every such case, to produce all the evidence bearing upon all the assessments out of which the redundancy decision arose. That seems to us to go far further than is proper.’ A consultation on a selection for redundancy is not complete if the selection criteria are not disclosed.
Citations:
Times 01-Feb-1995, [1995] IRLR 75
Statutes:
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 57(3)
Cited by:
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
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, Scotland
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82782