Redundancy selection process upheld despite age discrimination allegations
A Senior Customer Service Officer with 12 years' service lost her unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims after the tribunal found the bank's redundancy selection process was reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #interview-scoring
- #age-discrimination
- #pool-definition
- #comparator-analysis
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Customer Service Officer for 12 years.
- The respondent restructured its northern branches, creating a 'Super Centre' at Haringey.
- The claimant was placed at risk of redundancy on 11 May 2020 and dismissed on 12 June 2020.
- The claimant applied for Team Leader and SCSO roles but was unsuccessful.
- The successful candidate for Team Leader was aged 35, and the two successful SCSO candidates were aged 46 and 37.
- The tribunal found the selection process was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Warning of Proposed Redundancy
The claimant received a letter advising her role was at risk due to restructuring of northern branches.
-
Interviews for new roles
Interviews were held on 20, 21, and 22 May 2020 for available roles in the new structure.
-
Redundancy consultation letter
The claimant was invited to a telephone consultation on 5 June 2020.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant was informed she was unsuccessful in her applications and provisionally selected for redundancy.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant queried the selection process and raised concerns about age discrimination.
-
Dismissal effective
The claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Dismissal letter
The respondent confirmed the dismissal in writing.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the redundancy decision, citing unfair selection and age discrimination.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was heard by Mr Andrew Cheetham; the claimant attended with a trade union representative.
-
Appeal outcome
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original redundancy decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether she was directly discriminated against because of her age in the redundancy selection process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and that the selection process, including the interview scoring, was fair and reasonable. The tribunal also rejected the age discrimination claim, noting that the successful candidates were of various ages and that there was no evidence that age played a role in the decision.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective and applied consistently to all employees.
- Employees should raise any concerns about the selection process during consultation, as this can be used as evidence of a fair process.
- Age discrimination claims require evidence that age was a factor in the decision, not just a difference in age between candidates.
- A genuine redundancy situation can justify dismissal even if the employee has long service, provided the process is fair.
This case illustrates how tribunals assess the fairness of redundancy selection processes, particularly when employees allege discrimination. The claimant, a Senior Customer Service Officer with 12 years' service, was dismissed after a restructuring of the bank's northern branches. She applied for two roles but was unsuccessful, and the successful candidates were younger.
What the tribunal considered
The tribunal examined whether the bank's selection process was within the range of reasonable responses. It found that the bank had a genuine redundancy situation, consulted with the claimant, and used objective criteria to score interviews. The claimant's allegations that the process was unfair or age-discriminatory were not supported by evidence. The tribunal noted that the successful candidates were of varying ages and that the claimant's own performance in interviews was a key factor.
What the employer did right
The bank conducted a thorough consultation process, even during the pandemic, and gave employees opportunities to apply for multiple roles. The interview scoring was based on skills and experience, and the panel included senior managers. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's age was not mentioned during the process, and there was no evidence of discriminatory intent.
What this means for similar claims
Employees challenging redundancy selection must show that the process was not just flawed but fell outside the range of reasonable responses. Allegations of discrimination require direct or indirect evidence that a protected characteristic influenced the decision. This case confirms that a fair process, even if the outcome is disappointing for the employee, will be upheld by tribunals.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection manipulated to target older employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination
An applications engineer with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his redundancy scoring was manipulated and age played a material role. The tribunal awarded £65,747.54.
Age discrimination in redundancy selection: 21-year manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A Business Administration Manager with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy selection process that the tribunal found was tainted by age discrimination. The case highlights the risks of competency-based scoring lacking transparency.
Field sales executive dismissed for misrecording stock to hit bonus targets
A field sales executive with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after deliberately misrecording stock availability to generate bonus payments. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Clinical academic surgeon dismissed in university restructuring: redundancy process upheld
A consultant urological surgeon and senior lecturer lost her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims after Cardiff University's Medic Forward programme led to her redundancy. The tribunal found the process genuine and non-discriminatory.