Redundancy selection based on length of service: fair process upheld
An assembly operative with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after his employer used a length-of-service scoring matrix. The tribunal also rejected his race discrimination claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #race-discrimination
- #length-of-service
- #covid-19-downturn
- #selection-criteria
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an operative in the assembly department from 27 February 2018.
- The respondent suffered a downturn in work due to the Covid-19 pandemic and decided to reduce headcount by two operatives.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy based on a scoring matrix that primarily considered length of service.
- The claimant's comparators, Carl Hurst and Lee Wilbourne, were paid more due to longer service and perceived greater skills.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's Romanian nationality influenced his pay or dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent in the assembly department.
-
Staff meeting on redundancy
A staff meeting was held informing employees that the respondent was considering a redundancy programme and anticipated two redundancies in the assembly department.
-
Notice of potential redundancy
The claimant was provided with a notice indicating his role may be affected and invited to consider voluntary redundancy.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
The claimant attended a consultation meeting where the business case and selection assessment form were explained.
-
Redundancy confirmed
The claimant was notified that he had been selected for redundancy due to his shorter service, and no alternative position was available.
-
Dismissal date
The claimant was dismissed without notice but with two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
-
Hearing day 1
The substantive hearing began at Leeds Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment given
The tribunal dismissed both claims, finding no discrimination and a fair redundancy process.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed for a potentially fair reason (redundancy) and whether the employer acted reasonably in the selection process. It also had to determine if the claimant's lower pay compared to British colleagues was due to his nationality.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to the Covid-19 downturn, and the selection matrix based on length of service was a reasonable approach. The claimant's lower pay was due to his shorter service and lesser skills, not his nationality. The consultation process, though brief, was adequate given the circumstances.
- No compensation awarded as both claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service can be a fair criterion for redundancy selection, especially when used as part of a broader matrix.
- Employers should document the rationale for selection criteria and ensure they are applied consistently.
- A short consultation process may still be reasonable if the redundancy situation is clear and the employee has been informed and given an opportunity to comment.
- To succeed in a race discrimination claim, there must be evidence linking pay differences to race rather than other factors like experience or skills.
When redundancy selection is fair
This case shows that employers can lawfully use length of service as a primary factor in redundancy selection, provided the overall process is reasonable. The claimant, an assembly operative with two years' service, was selected for redundancy after his employer faced a downturn due to the pandemic. The scoring matrix gave higher marks for longer service, which meant the claimant scored lower than his colleagues.
What the employer did right
The respondent held a staff meeting, provided written notice, and conducted a consultation meeting where the selection criteria were explained. Although the claimant argued that the process was rushed, the tribunal accepted that the employer acted within the 'band of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's lower pay was due to his shorter service and skill level, not his Romanian nationality.
What this means for similar claims
Employees facing redundancy should engage with the consultation process and raise any concerns about selection criteria early. A claim of race discrimination requires clear evidence that race was a factor in the treatment – a pay difference alone is not enough if there are other legitimate reasons. This case reinforces that tribunals will respect genuine business decisions made in a downturn, as long as the process is fair and non-discriminatory.
Similar cases
17-year employee loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy scoring
A workshop planning co-ordinator with 17 years' service failed to prove his redundancy selection was unfair or discriminatory. The tribunal found Jaguar Land Rover's process was reasonable.
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.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Part-time fitness instructor unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A tribunal found that Greenwich Leisure Ltd unfairly dismissed an 8-year employee during pandemic redundancies, due to flawed selection criteria and a lack of consultation.