Redundancy selection score below breakpoint: a fair process upheld
A driver/custodian with 6 years' service was made redundant after scoring 16 out of a breakpoint of 19. The tribunal found the redundancy process fair and dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a driver/custodian from 11 August 2014 to 31 December 2020.
- The respondent made 48% of its workforce redundant due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The claimant scored 16 out of a breakpoint of 19 in the redundancy selection matrix.
- The claimant's request to reduce his hours was overlooked but did not affect his redundancy.
- The appeal process was fair and the appeal manager reviewed all relevant scoresheets.
- The tribunal found no evidence of religious discrimination in the selection process.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a driver/custodian at Loomis UK Ltd's Dunstable depot.
-
Phase 1 redundancies
The respondent made 312 employees redundant. The claimant was not selected.
-
Application to reduce hours
The claimant applied to reduce his working hours from 4 to 3 days per week, but the application was overlooked.
-
Invitation to consultation meeting
The claimant received an invitation to a group consultation meeting, delayed due to a typographical error in the email address.
-
Group consultation meeting
The claimant attended the group consultation meeting and later submitted comments by email on 12 November.
-
Individual consultation meeting
The claimant had a one-to-one consultation with depot manager MK.
-
Redundancy notice issued
The claimant was issued a redundancy notice after scoring 16, below the breakpoint of 19.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Appeal meeting
The claimant attended an appeal meeting chaired by area operations manager JC.
-
Appeal dismissed
JC wrote to the claimant dismissing the appeal, having reviewed scoresheets and found no unfairness.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether the redundancy process was fair, and whether the claimant was discriminated against because of his religion.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.
The key reasons were:
- The redundancy was genuine due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with a 48% workforce reduction.
- The scoring matrix was agreed with unions and applied consistently.
- The claimant scored 16, below the breakpoint of 19, and the scoresheets of comparators showed higher scores.
- The consultation process was adequate, and the appeal was fair.
- No evidence of religious discrimination was found.
The claimant's claim for holiday pay was withdrawn as it had been paid.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are at risk of redundancy, ensure you understand the scoring criteria and how your performance is assessed.
- Keep records of any requests for flexible working or adjustments, as they may be relevant to your selection.
- A fair redundancy process includes proper consultation, objective scoring, and a reasonable appeal opportunity.
- Claims of discrimination require evidence of less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic.
Redundancy during the pandemic: a fair process
When Loomis UK Ltd needed to cut 48% of its workforce due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it used a scoring matrix agreed with unions to select employees for redundancy. A driver/custodian with 6 years' service scored 16 out of a breakpoint of 19 and was selected. He claimed unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, arguing that the process was flawed and that Muslim employees were targeted.
The tribunal examined the redundancy process in detail. The scoring matrix covered criteria such as attendance, performance, and disciplinary records over the previous 12 months. The claimant's scoresheet showed lower marks in areas like attendance and performance compared to colleagues who scored higher. The tribunal found no evidence that the scores were manipulated or that the process was applied unfairly.
What could have been done differently?
The claimant argued that his application to reduce his working hours from 4 to 3 days per week had been overlooked and could have saved his job. However, the tribunal noted that even if the application had been processed, it would not have changed his selection score. The claimant also complained about a delayed invitation to a consultation meeting due to a typographical error in his email address. The tribunal found that the delay did not make the process unfair, as he attended the meeting and had a one-to-one consultation later.
Why this result matters
This case shows that tribunals will uphold redundancy decisions where the employer can demonstrate a genuine business need, a fair selection process, and proper consultation. The fact that the scoring matrix was agreed with unions and applied consistently was key. Employees facing redundancy should focus on understanding the scoring criteria and ensuring their performance is accurately reflected. Claims of discrimination require solid evidence of less favourable treatment, which was absent here.
Similar cases
Lead Design Engineer loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy selection process
A tribunal has ruled that a Lead Design Engineer with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lowest on a selection matrix. The claim was dismissed in full.
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.
Shouting at a colleague after a final warning: dismissal for conduct upheld
A production worker with a final written warning for threatening behaviour was fairly dismissed after shouting at a colleague. The tribunal also ordered Bighams Ltd to pay £648.96 for unpaid holiday.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: small business restructure after pandemic
An operations manager with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed when her role became redundant after the business automated processes and hired a head of operations. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.