27-year mechanic made redundant: selection criteria upheld as fair
A mechanic with 27 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring zero under agreed criteria, the tribunal found. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-criteria
- #individual-consultation
- #appeal-process
- #higher-qualifications
- #pandemic
Key facts
- The claimant was a mechanic with 27 years' service, transferred from BMI to BA in 2012.
- The claimant did not hold mandatory qualifications M7, M6, or M5 at the relevant date.
- The respondent and unions agreed selection criteria based on mandatory qualifications, with higher qualifications only used as tie-breakers.
- The claimant scored 0 points under the agreed criteria, but Mr Shearer awarded 1 point for his higher qualification (A3/2), giving a weighted score of 0.7.
- The cut-off score was 1.4, so the claimant was selected for redundancy.
- The claimant's appeal was reviewed by Mr Rai, who upheld the decision.
Timeline
-
Started work at BMI
Claimant began employment as an upholsterer with British Midland Airways.
-
Transferred to BA under TUPE
Claimant's employment transferred to British Airways as a mechanic.
-
Collective consultation attempts began
Respondent attempted to engage unions in collective consultation regarding redundancies.
-
Voluntary redundancy letter sent
Engineering Director wrote to all mechanics about voluntary redundancy due to pandemic.
-
Restructuring letter sent
Mr Exon wrote about restructuring and need for mechanics to consider options.
-
Information pack sent
Information pack sent to all mechanics; team meetings and one-to-ones offered.
-
Invitation to one-to-one consultation
Manager telephoned claimant to invite him to individual consultation; claimant did not respond.
-
Email invitation for consultation
Manager emailed claimant to book one-to-one consultation; claimant did not reply.
-
Second consultation meeting with unions
Selection criteria discussed; unions unable to propose alternatives.
-
Redundancy notice sent
Claimant received letter from Mr Exon informing him of selection for redundancy with EDT 31/08/2020.
-
Claimant received scores
Claimant requested and received his selection scores.
-
Appeal review completed
Mr Rai completed review of claimant's appeal.
-
Appeal outcome sent
Mr Rai wrote to claimant upholding redundancy decision.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether British Airways acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissing the mechanic, focusing on the fairness of the selection criteria, their application, the adequacy of individual consultation, and the appeal process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The selection criteria (mandatory qualifications) were agreed with unions and were not inherently unfair.
- The respondent applied the criteria consistently, and the claimant's higher qualification was given extra points as a tie-breaker, but he still fell below the cut-off.
- Individual consultation was offered but the claimant did not respond to invitations; the employer was not required to do more.
- The appeal process was thorough and reasonable.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Selection criteria agreed with trade unions are likely to be seen as fair by tribunals, even if they disadvantage long-serving employees.
- If you ignore invitations to consultation meetings, the employer may be able to proceed without you, and the dismissal may still be fair.
- Having higher qualifications does not guarantee safety from redundancy if the primary criteria are mandatory qualifications and you lack them.
- An appeal that carefully reviews the selection process can help an employer show it acted reasonably.
A long career cut short by pandemic restructuring
When the pandemic hit, British Airways faced a drastic reduction in work and needed to make mechanics redundant. The claimant, a mechanic with 27 years of service, was selected after a process that prioritised mandatory qualifications. He did not hold the required M7, M6 or M5 qualifications, scoring zero under the main criteria. A manager gave him an extra point for a higher qualification, but his weighted score of 0.7 was still below the cut-off of 1.4.
The tribunal heard that the criteria had been agreed with unions after collective consultation. The claimant argued that his long service and higher qualifications should have counted for more, but the tribunal noted that the employer had a wide discretion to choose criteria that met its business needs. The fact that the criteria were agreed with unions was a strong indicator of fairness.
What the employer did right
British Airways offered individual consultation by phone and email, but the claimant did not respond. The tribunal found that the employer had done enough to try to engage him. The appeal was handled by a different manager, Mr Rai, who reviewed the scores and the process before upholding the decision. This showed the employer had taken the matter seriously.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal applied the band of reasonable responses test. It concluded that the selection criteria were not inherently unfair, they were applied consistently, and the consultation and appeal were adequate. Even though the claimant had 27 years' service, the employer was not required to give him special treatment beyond the agreed process. The claim was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection scoring upheld: fair process and consultation saved the day
A Heating Sales Advisor with five years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal found that British Gas Services Limited followed a fair redundancy process, including collective consultation, objective scoring, and a proper appeal.
Senior Supervisor selected for redundancy after appraisal re-done without his input
A Senior Supervisor with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer re-did his performance appraisal without consulting him, then failed to provide evidence of the appeal process. The tribunal awarded £16,211.91.
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.
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.