Redundancy selection unfair after absence scoring error and flawed appeal
A Vehicle Handling Operative was unfairly dismissed after his employer incorrectly scored his absence record and then removed two selection criteria on appeal, a tribunal has ruled. He was awarded £13,868.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #selection-criteria
- #absence-scoring-error
- #appeal-process-unfair
- #training-criterion-weighting
- #stand-up-criterion
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Vehicle Handling Operative at Jaguar Land Rover Halewood.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy exercise due to a downturn in business from the Covid pandemic.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy based on five criteria: absence, disciplinary, punctuality, Stand Up experience, and training processes.
- The absence criterion was incorrectly scored, giving the claimant 1 point instead of 5, which would have placed him 3rd and safe from redundancy.
- The appeal process removed two criteria (Stand Up and training), further disadvantaging the claimant.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to the scoring error and the unreasonable appeal process.
Timeline
-
Claimant's first sickness absence period
Claimant absent from 11-15 January 2021 (later corrected to three periods).
-
Absence summary printed
Mrs Martin requested and received an absence summary for the VHOs.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
Mrs Martin, Mrs Tooke, and Mrs Bertie met with the VHOs to discuss redundancy.
-
Scoring completed (except training)
Mrs Martin scored most criteria by this date; training data requested from client.
-
Scores emailed to client
Rhianne Bertie emailed the scores to Steve Berry at 13:47; union not informed until 17:31.
-
Claimant lodged appeal
Mr Downey appealed the redundancy decision, citing unfair scoring and lack of opportunity for training.
-
Liability hearing day 1
First day of the final hearing before Judge Cowx.
-
Liability hearing day 2
Second day; judgment reserved.
-
Liability judgment sent
Written judgment finding unfair dismissal.
-
Remedy hearing
Hearing to determine remedy; claimant rejected re-engagement offers.
-
Remedy judgment
Order for compensatory award of £13,868; reinstatement refused.
The legal issue
Whether the employer's redundancy selection process was fair, specifically whether the scoring of the absence criterion was correct and whether the appeal process rectified or compounded any unfairness.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The key reasons were:
- The absence criterion was scored incorrectly: the claimant received 1 point instead of 5, which would have placed him 3rd and safe from redundancy.
- The appeal process removed two criteria (Stand Up experience and training processes), further disadvantaging the claimant and failing to cure the original unfairness.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £13,868
- Total: £13,868
Lessons & takeaways
- Double-check all scoring data before finalising redundancy selections — a single error can make the entire process unfair.
- An appeal process must genuinely review the original decision; removing criteria that help the employee can worsen the unfairness.
- Consult with the union or employee representatives before finalising selection criteria, not after scoring is complete.
- Keep clear records of how each criterion is scored and ensure the data source is accurate and up to date.
A costly scoring mistake
When a Vehicle Handling Operative (VHO) at Jaguar Land Rover Halewood was selected for redundancy, a simple error in scoring his absence record proved decisive. The employer, Resource Management Solutions (North East) Limited, gave him 1 point for absence when he should have received 5. With the correct score, he would have ranked 3rd out of 8 — safe from redundancy.
The tribunal found that the error was not corrected during the redundancy process, and the appeal made matters worse by removing two of the five selection criteria (Stand Up experience and training processes) that could have helped the claimant. This meant the appeal did not cure the original unfairness.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by checking the absence data before finalising scores. A simple verification step — comparing the printout with actual records — would have revealed the mistake. Additionally, involving the union before scoring, not after, would have given employees a fairer chance to challenge the criteria. The appeal panel should have considered whether the removal of criteria was fair, especially when it disadvantaged the claimant.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that even in a genuine redundancy situation, the selection process must be scrupulously fair. A single scoring error can render a dismissal unfair, especially if the error changes the outcome. Employees facing redundancy should check their scores carefully and raise any discrepancies immediately. Employers must ensure that selection criteria are applied consistently and that appeals are meaningful — not just a rubber stamp.
Similar cases
Redundancy unfair when selection criteria kept secret from employee
An Optimisation Engineer with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after Unipart Group failed to disclose redundancy selection criteria or scores during consultation. The tribunal found the process both procedurally and substantively unfair.
Senior compliance officer unfairly selected for redundancy using wrong pay scale
A senior compliance officer was unfairly dismissed after being scored for redundancy against the wrong pay scale. The tribunal awarded £22,987.92 after applying a 15% Polkey reduction.
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
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.