Length of Service Criteria for redundancy

I have recently been formerly notified by my employer that I and two other managers are 'at risk of redundancy'. We all have different job titles and responsibilities. The three jobs are been replaced by a new role with a new Person Specification and new Job Description. On balance the role is more similar to my current role than either of the other two managerial roles currently considered to be at risk. I have questioned to appropriateness of the use of length of service as one of seven selection for redundancy criteria in our circumstances as I consider it to be a recruitment issue.

Surely this criteria is only fit for purpose in situations where may same role redundancies arise (eg. 40 widget makers are reduced to 10 widget makers). It doesn't really tackle my issue as we are not in a situation where we are seeking to reduce the number of managers in the same role but are looking to restructure the department and replace three redundant roles with one new one.

My point is that the redundancy selection has effectively been made. Three management roles have been made redundant as part of the restructure and a new post, with a new description and new responsibilities has been developed. In this sense the organisation are seeking to recruit to a new post from a restricted recruitment pool of candidates whose roles have already been identified as redundant in the new structure.

I would point out that of the criteria listed only Absenteeism and Length of Service are truly metric (objective), the other criteria offer opportunity for the decision makers to be subjective. Based on what HR have said I am entering a a recruitment competition knowing that I have a minimum handicap of 16 points before any criteria relating to my suitability for the role will be considered.

I have 4 years service whilst both of the other managers have been with the organisation for over 20 years. This will give both managers a 16 point lead out of a possible 100 points allocated against 6 other criteria. I received this response:

A: Length of Service is only one criteria of the selection process.. It is not being used as a sole method of selection. Moreover, it is legal and legitimate to have it. For avoidance of doubt, we have already checked the legal situation on this and it is one of the objective criteria that is commonly used in redundancy selection process.

I am aware of the court ruling pertaining to the Roll Royce vs Unit case regarding 'length of service as a selection criteria for redundancy. Is it as cut and shut as this or should I continue to seek clarity?

Length of service as a criteria is outdated, potentially discriminatory and also makes no business sense. Criteria for redundancy should ensure the best person for the job is kept, so things like skills, experience, performance appraisal ratings and also disciplinary and absence records are all much better criteria. How long someone's worked for a company doesn't in itself indicate how good they are, as I'm sure you'd agree.

How they select the person for the new job - using a recruitment process or using selection criteria - is up to them really, so that's not the issue.

However if these other two are older than you, and the use of length of service as a criteria makes the difference, then you could consider claiming age discrimination.

I would suggest you notify your employer that you consider use of LOS as a redundancy selection criteria to be discriminatory on the basis of age - get it on the record- and would like them to remove that criteria.

if they don't, and you don't get the job, you can appeal it and then decide what you want to do.