Selection Criteria - SICKNESS

Dear Sirs,

I hope you can help me. Last month we were told that all people in our team were at risk of redundancy (over 20 people), and that only half the number of positions would be created for the people who stay. There are 3 people in my group and only 2 positions available.

I was told that after the selection criteria was taken into account, I had got the same score as one of my colleagues, so that we both would have to go through a job interview for the post. I was extremely surprised to hear this and asked to see my scores. I also contacted my manager in writing and asked that both of us were given the opportunity to see the criteria and score before the interview. To no account.

Just after the interview I had my second 121 meeting. I was so exhausted and drained that I did not ask for the score then, and they were not offered. I was later informed that I had been unsuccessful in the interview and therefore will be losing my job.

I believe that, because the scores were not produced before a decision was taken, this redundancy process lacks of fairness. I was later given the criteria and the scores, and there are quite a lot of scores I could have challenged. Rather than challenging them before the interview, as I think was the fair thing to do, I will now have to appeal against the decision taken.

I need to get some information about the Absence / Sickness criteria in particular, as it was actually the criteria that put us at the same level.
I have 6.5 days off sick, and my colleague has 5. The judgement call was as follows:
- High (>10 days) =0
- Medium (6-10 days) = 5
- None/Low (0-5 days) =10

That means that she got 5 points more than me in this criteria, and as a result of that, we got the same total of points. Therefore, the sickness was the score that decided our totals.

I find this very difficult to accept as fair. I hear that the tribunals favour a system that calculates sickness based in the number of occasions and not the number of days. We both had 3 occasions, and therefore would have got the same number of points. My totals would then have been higher than hers.

Also, I find it difficult to accept that even if they use the number of days, they are used in grades, so that one day more or less can mean a difference of 5 points. The fair thing to do would be deducting one point per day off, so she would have got 5 points and I would have got 3.5. Still 1.5 more total points than her.

Could you please give me your expert views about this score?
Many thanks.

Thank you for your question although I am sorry to hear that you have been selected for redundancy.

Sickness and absence can be used as part of the selection criterion. Providing the criteria is fair and objective, consistently applied and your employer hasn't used absences which are discriminatory (covered by DDA, Maternity laws), this is a legitimate and fair criteria to use in selecting employees for redundancy

In order for the consultation to be fair, your employer should give you the opportunity to challenge the criteria adopted and score that you have received. Employers that fail to do this can be vulnerable to claims of unfair dismissal.

In the case of this case of Sanmina SCI UK Ltd v McCormack and others EAT 0066/05, employees who were given their ‘scores' following the application of the selection criteria and before they had the opportunity to comment, the employees were told that they were redundant. There dismissal was found to be unfair.

I would say the next thing to do is to appeal the decision on the grounds that you you were not consulted with fully (i.e. no opportunity to challenge the score).

Unfortuantely I do not know of any cases where tribunal has ruled that occasions should be used and not days. In my opinion criteria that causes problems are subjective criteria, not an objective nature like sickness and absence records.

Perhaps Peter could also throw some light on this .

Thank you very much for your reply.

I am now appealing against the decision, as I was never given the chance
to challenge the criteria before the interview, which I believe would have
not be needed had I had this opportunity.

Regarding this sickness criteria, I just find difficult to consider fair than,
Rather than discounting one point per day, per instance, they give a difference
Of 5 points if one person has 5 days and the other one has 6.
I would also consider it unfair had I had null days off and my colleague had 5.

This counting has made another person get the same scoring as I did and
seems to have been of great importance.

I am appealing regarding the time the scores were given and challenging several
of those scores, but to be honest I don't expect that corporate HR managers will
go against their colleagues, so I might have to start looking for help in a couple of weeks.

Many thanks.

I would go along with Employee Advisor's reply.

I agree also, that the method of scoring sickness absence seems heavy-handed. If this scoring has caused your selection (i.e. if they merely used the number of days as points, so that you got 6 and the other got 5, and if that would have resulted in the other being selected) then I think you should draw this to their attention at the appeal. The key things here for you to raise are the lack of opportunity to comment on the selection criteria; the lack of opportunity to challenge the scores before the decision was taken; and that this taken together means that you have been unfairly selected. You should propose that they start from scratch with the process and ensure that they consult adequately this time.

Make sure you put everything in writing and get their response in writing too.

Good luck

Pete

If you have now been provisionally selected for redundancy now after your 1-2-1 interviews then they should state that fact. You should not been selected for redundancy at this point, you are meant to have 2 or 3 consultation meetings to try and resolve the redundancy. If you haven't then you need to raise this point as you haven't had chance to challenge their criteria yet.

You are right that about the number of instances! They should have used this method of scoring. It has been the way I have been scored and from what I can gather it's now what companies are advised to do. So challenge that one for sure as it should have helped you keep your job.

If they don't consult you then they have already lost I would think, you need to get some proper legal advice on this as I think it's automatically unfair dismissal. Employee advisor is right.