A redundancy scoring criteria that did not add up

An employee can perhaps accept losing their job if the reason for it is made clear and they accept it - but in Valerie’s case the reason was unclear.

The sales and marketing executive was dismissed by way of redundancy after 10 years’ service.

Valerie was devastated by the news. Especially as just a couple of months earlier she had changed her working hours in order to help to care for her disabled grandchild after submitting a request for flexible working

To make matters worse, Valerie could not understand why she had been selected for redundancy.

This was despite her making repeated requests for clarity about the redundancy selection pool and criteria.

Valerie was in a pool of four colleagues and was the only one selected for redundancy.

This happened as restrictions were being eased during the pandemic. Valerie’s employer, like many other businesses at the time, was hit hard.

Valerie had consistently been a top performer and received praise and financial reward for her performance prior to the pandemic. And Valerie was also the most experienced in the redundancy selection pool that she was placed in, which is why the decision was such a shock.

The redundancy consultation process did not identify a suitable alternative role for Valerie, and so her dismissal was confirmed.

When Valerie contacted our Employee Support Centre for help she was angry and frustrated with her employer.

Valerie had very sensibly collected written evidence, in terms of email exchanges with her employer both during and after the redundancy process.

That evidence helped to show the unfairness in the way in which Valerie had been treated and the dismissive response to her legitimate concerns.

It was why Valerie was convinced that what had happened to her amounted to an unfair dismissal.

After Valerie was informed she would be made redundant she had unsuccessfully applied for a number of other jobs.

This meant that at the time her desired outcome to the redundancy appeal was to be reinstated.

Our representative requested a range of information from the employer prior to the appeal hearing. Some of what was asked for had previously been requested by Valerie.

He received most, but not all, of the information he asked for, and it was certainly enough to support the appeal.

The scoring matrix used to assess the performance of Valerie and her colleagues was based on quality, productivity, client feedback and behavioural competencies.

The information provided showed Valerie scored 26 out of 40, with her colleagues all scoring higher.

Our representative, having obtained the scores prior to the appeal hearing and discussing them with Valerie, was able to robustly challenge them and ask for the evidence to justify them.

He queried the scores and was able to provide evidence, gathered both from Valerie and provided by the employer in response to his request for information, to assert she should have scored higher in all four categories of the selection criteria.

The employer insisted the process and evidence used was fair.

However, our representative was adamant that without any evidence to justify Valerie’s scores or explain how they were calculated, the process cannot reasonably be considered fair.

He also maintained that Valerie was entitled to the information, which should be provided as part of an open and transparent process. The discussion was lengthy.

The employer eventually said it would adjourn the hearing to consider the request, and that it would reconvene at a later date.

Valerie received some good news before the hearing could reconvene. She was offered a new job.

So, Valerie asked our representative if it would be possible to agree a settlement agreement to conclude her appeal. He approached the employer to discuss it.

What Valerie wanted as part of such an agreement was very reasonable given how she had been treated.

In what is often a rare response in such discussions, the employer agreed to pay Valeire exactly what she wanted in addition to her redundancy pay.