There have been few days recently when redundancies haven't been in the news. Where redundancies are necessary it is important to ensure that a thorough consultation process is followed, as the penalties imposed when an employee has been unfairly dismissed can be greater than keeping the employee on. One case where the employer got it wrong is described below:

Gregory vs E-Zec Medical Transport Service Ltd

E-Zec recognised in 2006 that it would have to make a number of employees redundant due to a downturn in business. The senior HR manager carried out checks relating to sickness absence and discipline from the personnel files, whilst the regional manager rated employees on performance, skills and attitude which he based on his experience of working with them. Notification of the redundancies was made in November 2006 and employees were given a letter detailing the reasons behind the redundancies. A second meeting was held in December, but Gregory was unable to attend as she was on annual leave and had not been informed of the meeting.

Affected employees were notified of alternative positions within the company, but these roles were all full-time and Gregory, as a part-time employee was told that it would be difficult, if not impossible for her to successfully apply for these. Affected employees were invited to individual "consultation meetings" where they were informed of their scores from the marking criteria but were not allowed to see the marking matrix, or the reasoning behind their score. Gregory was informed that she had the second lowest score, given a letter stating that she was at risk of redundancy and advised that a further consultation meeting would take place.

In January 2007 the employee received a letter notifying her that she was being dismissed due to redundancy. She appealed internally on the grounds of sex discrimination, disability discrimination (she worked part-time in order to care for her disabled daughter) and that the marking matrix was not objective. The internal appeal was dismissed and the employee started employment tribunal proceedings on the grounds of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal agreed that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and the employer appealed, unsuccessfully, against this ruling.

What went wrong?
The employment tribunal found that the employer's marking criteria were wholly subjective and as such were incapable of objective measurement. The trade union was only consulted once the marking criteria had been set and applied and the employees were not informed of the marking process. All of these factors plus that the regional manager alone judged employee performance without keeping notes made the selection process unfair and subjective

The consultation process was neither thorough nor complete. The employee missed one of the initial meetings and the final "consultation meeting" did not occur. At the start of the consultation period, the following information must be given:

• Reasons for redundancies
• Number and categories of employees involved
• Number of employees in each category employed at the site
• Redundancy selection process
• How the redundancies will be carried out
• Calculation of redundancy payments

The internal appeal process failed to rectify the defects which had occurred during the redundancy consultation process. The employee had appealed against the decision to make her redundant, but the employer rejected the appeal without thoroughly looking back over the redundancy selection and consultation process and realising the errors that they had made.

Making employees redundant is something that no employer wants to do, but if this becomes necessary then the correct process must be followed to ensure that the best outcome is reached for both employees and employer.

If you need advice about anything involved in the redundancy process, please contact your HR Advantage consultant or call Campbell on 01494 478806.