In an Appeal before the English Employment Appeals Tribunal decided on the 21st April 2011, IJ Rees and Ors –v- Peninsula Business Services Limited (Appeal No. UKEAT/0407/10/RN), the Court decided that the Appellant Peninsula Business Services Limited had unfairly dismissed the claimants IJ Rees and 2 other former employees because, at the Stage 2 process of their Redundancy selection procedure, where they met with the employees individually to consult with them on their selection for Redundancy, they failed to advise them of the individual scores at their first Consultation meeting.
Selection for Redundancy
In the earlier stages of a Redundancy procedure employers need to carefully determine the initial selection pool for redundancy. Unless there is a customary arrangement, an employer should identify the group of employees at the planning stage who may be made redundant. This will usually be those who undertake a similar type of work in a particular department, or work at a relevant location, or whose work has either ceased or diminished, or is expected to do so. These will be the selection pool.
In the later stages of the redundancy process, individuals must be selected from within the wider pool. Where there is a choice between employees, selection must be based on objective criteria which may include:
- length of service
- attendance records
- disciplinary records
- skills, competencies and qualifications
- work experience
- performance records.
Tribunals look favorably on selection procedures based on a points system which scores each employee against the relevant criteria. Peninsula selected the employees for Redundancy but where they fell short was that, in giving information to the employees before their meeting, the failure to furnish the scores in advance of the meeting was a failure to provide material information in accordance with the Statutory Disciplinary regulations.
In reaching its Decision the Court stated :
We accept the submission of all Claimants before us that the unfairness in this case was that they did not know their score at a time when they could respond properly to it. They did not know the outcome of the inquiries they made until after the appeal. They could not argue the scores unless they knew how Mrs English had assessed them. Mr Rees asked the simple question, “Redundancy is personal: why me?” In order to answer that, he had to know what the score was and what the scoring process was. During the course of the interview, which was said to be the step 2 meeting, scores were made but the Claimants were not told what they were.
The respondents were “experts” in Employment Law
Ironically, the Respondents are an Employment Law consultancy and yet even such a consultancy fell foul of the strict procedures required under Employment Law. As His Honour Judge McMullen QC noted :
These were experts in employment relations, and the finding against the case of any of them would be very damaging.
This Decision is a damaging result for Peninsula Business Services Limited which also provides Employment Law services in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It just goes to show that not even Peninsula can guarantee a correct result in an Employment Law case.