Ramp allocator with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed over subjective redundancy interview
A ramp allocator with 23 years' service was unfairly dismissed after Menzies Aviation used subjective interview-based selection criteria for redundancy. The tribunal awarded £31,373.68 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #interview-based-selection
- #subjective-criteria
- #lack-of-marking-scheme
- #teams-interruption
- #long-service
Key facts
- Both claimants were employed as Ramp Allocators at Terminal 2, Heathrow.
- The respondent selected 10 Terminal 2 Allocators for redundancy using interview-based assessments.
- The interview questions lacked objective marking criteria and model answers.
- The second claimant's Teams interview was disrupted by technical issues, affecting his performance.
- The tribunal found the selection criteria were not objective, clear, or transparent.
- No Polkey reduction was applied as the tribunal could not conclude the claimants would have been dismissed fairly.
Timeline
-
Redundancy announcement
Frank Dobbelsteijn informed employees of proposed 446 redundancies due to COVID-19.
-
At-risk letters sent
Both claimants received letters informing them their roles were at risk.
-
Selection interviews
Both claimants attended interview-based assessments conducted by Steven Harrison and Angela Hibbert.
-
Collective consultation ended
The respondent ended collective consultation without agreement on pool or criteria.
-
Second claimant dismissed
Mr Mann was informed he was redundant.
-
First claimant dismissed
Mr Dub was informed he was redundant.
-
Second claimant ET1 lodged
Mr Mann's claim form was submitted.
-
First claimant ET1 lodged
Mr Dub's claim form was submitted.
-
Full merits hearing
Tribunal heard evidence over three days.
-
Reserved judgment
Tribunal found both claimants unfairly dismissed.
-
Remedy judgment
Compensation of £31,373.68 awarded to Mr Dub (first claimant).
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissals were fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether the selection pool, criteria, and consultation process were within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found both claimants were unfairly dismissed.
Key reasons:
- The interview-based selection criteria were not objective, clear, or transparent.
- The second claimant's Teams interview was disrupted by technical issues, affecting his performance.
- No Polkey reduction was applied as the tribunal could not conclude the claimants would have been dismissed fairly.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £0.00
- Compensatory award: £31,373.68
- Total: £31,373.68
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective, clear, and transparent to avoid unfair dismissal claims.
- Technical issues during remote interviews should be addressed fairly, potentially by rescheduling.
- Long-serving employees (over 20 years) may expect a higher standard of fairness in redundancy processes.
- Consultation on selection criteria and pool should be meaningful and involve employee representatives.
When redundancy selection goes wrong
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy process can unravel when selection criteria are not properly designed. Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited selected 10 ramp allocators at Heathrow's Terminal 2 for redundancy using interview-based assessments. But the tribunal found the process was fundamentally flawed.
The interview questions lacked objective marking criteria and model answers, making the selection subjective. For one claimant with 23 years' service, this was particularly damaging — his Teams interview was disrupted by technical issues, which the tribunal said affected his performance.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by using objective, measurable criteria — such as skills tests or performance data — rather than relying solely on interviews. They should also have ensured that any technical issues during remote assessments were addressed, for example by rescheduling or offering an alternative format.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that redundancy selection must be fair and transparent. Tribunals will scrutinise whether criteria are objective and consistently applied. The fact that no Polkey reduction was applied — meaning the tribunal could not say the claimants would have been dismissed even with a fair process — shows how serious the procedural failings were. For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of challenging subjective selection methods, especially if you have long service.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection: lowest score in pool led to fair dismissal
A Holistic Assessor with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after scoring lowest in a redundancy selection matrix. The tribunal found the process was reasonable despite the employee's concerns about the criteria.
36.5-year employee unfairly dismissed after managers assessed their own pool
A sales advisor with 36.5 years' service was procedurally unfairly dismissed when managers assessing redundancy scores were themselves in the same pool. The tribunal found a 100% chance she would have been dismissed anyway, so no compensation was awarded.
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Long-serving teacher unfairly dismissed after raising race discrimination grievance
A primary school teacher with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed for 'irretrievable breakdown' after she raised a grievance alleging race discrimination. The tribunal also found she was victimised.