Selection criteria matrix (skewed?)

Hi,

I am currently 'at risk' of redundancy, as 1 of 3 to go. My employer has held a meeting with the staff as whole, informing them that some redundancies are inevitable. Members of our team have had a letter informing them they are 'at risk' - so far so good.

I received a second letter last Monday inviting me to a meeting on Friday with the MD, which was to have redundancy process and options explained to me. To date, I am the only member of my team to receive a letter and meeting, as part of a process which finishes on the 30th September. Is this suggestive of a foregone conclusion? The meeting merely entailed my MD re-reading his own letter, not discussing any options as promised and trying to make it incumbent on me to suggest avoiding redundancy.

I have not been properly shown the selection criteria matrix to be used, but glimpsed that it had percentage weightings applied to the criteria. I believe these weightings may be used to try and influence the selection against me.

For instance, length of service is allocated just 5%, as I am the longest serving member. Where as time keeping and attendance are allocated 15% each. I am concerned that the employer will try and use my erratic hours during some serious extenuating circumstances earlier this year to further influence the outcome. My wife was very seriously ill in hospital and I had to organise her care and that my two infant children with her parents. Since January 2008, I have worked 98 hours unpaid overtime, though I am salaried.

I understand that there is no industry standard for the selection matrix, but I've not heard of weightings being applied like this. The form has yet to be completed and I have asked the MD during the meeting to provide a copy of the completed form. He is extremely reticent to do this.

Would these events be enough to bring about a potential claim of unfair dismissal?

Many thanks,

No, I am afraid they wouldn't.

Unofficially speaking, I would have to advise you that it is hardly uncommon for employers to have already determined the outcome of any selection process. If they are even half way intelligent, this is something that will never be proven, no matter how hard you try. The process only has to be objectively measurable and fair in law - it does not have to be "fair" to individuals.

Weightings are very commonplace and can be applied as the employer wishes, provided that they are applied to all people equally.

On the specific circumstances here, you are on a hiding to nothing on length of service. Length of service being a major contributing factor to the decision potentially falls foul of age discrimination legislation (and "first in last out" is now definitely "out"). IN fact, many employer won't weight it at all because of the risk, and if they do it gets a small weighting, as yours has done.

The next thing is going to sound wildly unsympathetic so please understand that isn't the case - I am simply telling you how it is. Employers never rate erratic attendances well, whether these are caused by lateness or some form of absence from work such as sickness. Such things almost always count heavily against staff - and whether there is a good reason for them or not isn't relevant. Sickness management procedures are, for example, about reducing sickness absence - not about whether sickness is genuine or not. The same goes here - the fact that your attednance issues were caused by a good reason are not relevant - only that there are such issues on record.

Working unpaid overtime does not count for anything, unless that is a selection criteria, or can be reflected in one of the selected criteria.

Once you have been scored you have a right to see and to challenge your scoring. Normally you would also have the right to know how you scroed against others, but only in an anonymised format - given the small number of staff involved the employer may be justified, should they so choose, to refuse you access to the other scores as it would be very easy to identify individuals from these and you aren't supposed to be given information which would identify individuals.

In terms of the consultation meeting, at this point in time it would appear that other than asking if you had any ideas to avoid any redundancies, and making sure you understood the process, there is actually little else to say. Certainly so far there is nothing wrong in that. Obviously, other staff should have such meetings too, but right now it would be hard to demonstrate, from what you have said, that there is anything unfair in law going on. All your suspicions may be entirely correct - but that is all they are, and you will need significantly more evidence to suggest an unfair selection process at tribunal. Sorry.

If you can come back with more as the process goes on, obviously that may change things, so do come back for more advice as this progresses - don't just think "that's it then" and disappear!

Thank you for that. The other members of the team have now been issued with notices to attend interviews, so it appears that the process is ongoing yet. I will keep you posted if anything significant occurs.

It does seem rather unfair on the point of a nett benefit to the employer on my attendance though.

I entirely agree with you - and this should be one of the things that you point out to your employer during the process. The problem is that what you and I think isn't relevant at all. Provided that the criteria are clear and objectively applied to everyone, then it is what the employer thinks that matters. In the end, an employer would be entirely foolish in getting rid of a good worker and keeping a poor one (if that is how a redundancy turns out) - but they have the right to be foolish, I am sorry to say.

morning

i have just been made redundant and i believe that the matrix selction process was pre determined as the company has kept a much younger colleague with much less experience but on a much lower salary. Is it worth appealing against the decision, i have 2 days left to appeal??

You are being wildly naive if you think that the matrix was not designed to produce the outcome that the employer wanted - the employer is required to implement it "fairly and objectively", but it says nothing about settingit! The only good reason to appeal is if you believe that it was not scored fairly and objectively - what you think their motivations in setting the criteria being applied is not grounds for appeal. But in answer to the specific question - yes, it is fair for an employer to have a view to the cost of an employee in relation to selection.