Redundancy errors?

I have just found this site, a little too late it may seem as I have a meeting with HR tomorrow. If anyone does have the time to answer this post, THANK YOU!

I have been selected for redundancy and was given two weeks to sign an agreement. However the company are not telling me how many people have been put at risk and are refusing to do so. How do I know if there are more or less than 20?

I was called into a meeting, told I had two weeks, and did I have any questions.

I was later told that I was part of a selection matrix against another employee and that I scored lower. I say I was told, but this information was not forthcoming until it was asked for.

Having seen the criteria now, I feel it is a complete joke. I have been scored against someone at the same level, but according to the company has not been there long enough to have a standard end of year review by her manager, but obviously long enough to be included in this review. Her manager hasn't even met her face to face but does deal with her on the phone and by WebEx.

The review has also been done by our manager and supervised by his manager. So the scoring was done by ONE PERSON! To me, that sounds very subjective. There were no tests, assessement centres, interviews or anything. Just that person putting a number down (which I also don't agree with and will be raising).

Of couse I wasn't even told that this selection matrix was being done. I had no imput to it at all.

Thank you for listening to me rant and any help you can give would be amazing.

Steve.

Rant away - but there is nothing patently wrong in the process here. One person can do the scoring - you have misunderstood what the word subjective means in this context. The scoring must be applied with "an even hand", and without bias - not done by a group of people. The fact your colleague has not had a review does not mean that they cannot be scored, and if they are able to supervise and manage her work without a face to face meeting then they are certainly able to score her without having done so. And you had no legal right to "input" into the scoring if the same applied to noth of you.

Making someone redundant gairly in law is considerably easier than people think it is. In the end the employer always gets the result they want, and it would appear that this is the case. They have applied what appears, on the face of it, to be a legally fair process, but based on what you say it also appears that you are the one they want gone. It will be hard to prove that, and in the end, possibly not worth the effort - I doubt you could prove it and if you did, would you really want to work in an environment where you are not wanted? It isn't likley that this would be the end of it - if they want rid of you then they will find a way.

Thank you very much for getting back to me. You were correct. They set up the matrix as they see fit and it didn't concern them that just one person fills out the answers. So basically it's his word against mine. This really doesn't sound fair or transparent to me at all (which I thought a selection process like this needs to be).

With regards to them not telling me about how many people are at risk, this is still the case. This is obviously to get themselves out of their collective obligations, but as they're not telling me, how do I know if I have a case for this? I feel the only way is to go to a tribunal but this is going to take time and cost money.

There really isn't much of a case to be made out of them refusing to tell you how many people are being made redundant.