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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #subjective-criteria
- #reworks
- #working-time-regulations
- #pip
- #appeal-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Holistic Assessor from August 2017 until redundancy in June 2021.
- The respondent lost a subcontract, leading to a 30% reduction in referrals and a proposal to make 5 of 23 Holistic Assessors redundant.
- The claimant scored 18 out of 33 points in the selection matrix, the lowest score in the pool.
- The claimant did not challenge his scores during the consultation process, choosing to wait for the appeal.
- The appeal manager, Mrs Bull, rejected the appeal without waiting for the claimant's DSAR documents.
- The tribunal found the dismissal fair, noting the claimant had opportunities to challenge scores and the appeal was reasonable.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a Holistic Assessor for Royal British Legion Industries.
-
Working time complaint
Claimant raised concerns about working hours and supported a colleague's grievance.
-
First PIP started
Claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.
-
Oral warning issued
Claimant received an oral warning after failing to meet PIP standards.
-
Second PIP completed
Claimant successfully completed a second PIP and returned to normal monitoring.
-
Redundancy proposal
Respondent informed of loss of contract, leading to proposed redundancies.
-
At-risk letter
Claimant received letter warning of potential redundancy and was placed in a pool of 23.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended first individual consultation; suggested reducing hours or moving to mental health work.
-
Second consultation meeting
Selection criteria discussed; claimant did not challenge scores.
-
Scoring sent to claimant
Claimant received his scores (18/33) and was given opportunity to comment.
-
Outcome meeting
Claimant met with Mr Barrett; redundancy confirmed on 24 June 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mrs Bull; claimant raised issues but did not provide detailed evidence.
-
Appeal rejected
Mrs Bull sent letter rejecting appeal, stating process was fair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair because the selection criteria were insufficiently objective, the claimant was deliberately under-scored, and the appeal process was flawed.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- There was a genuine redundancy situation due to a lost subcontract.
- The selection criteria were not obviously unreasonable, and the claimant scored lowest in the pool.
- The claimant had opportunities to challenge his scores during consultation but did not do so until the appeal.
- The appeal manager's decision not to wait for DSAR documents was reasonable in the circumstances.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are in a redundancy pool, challenge your scores during consultation, not just at appeal.
- Selection criteria do not need to be perfectly objective; they just need to be within the range of reasonable responses.
- An appeal process that is thorough and considers your points can be fair even if it doesn't wait for additional documents you requested.
- Keep a record of all consultation meetings and any concerns you raise about the process.
A redundancy process under scrutiny
When Royal British Legion Industries lost a subcontract, it faced a 30% reduction in referrals and proposed making 5 of 23 Holistic Assessors redundant. The claimant, who had worked there for nearly four years, was placed in a selection pool. He scored 18 out of 33 points on the selection matrix, the lowest in the pool, and was dismissed.
The claimant argued that the selection criteria were not objective enough and that his scores were deliberately understated because he had previously raised concerns about working time regulations. He also felt the appeal process was unfair because the appeal manager did not wait for documents he had requested under a DSAR.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the redundancy situation was genuine and the selection criteria were not obviously unreasonable. The claimant had been given opportunities to challenge his scores during two consultation meetings but did not do so. The appeal manager, Mrs Bull, considered his points and concluded the process was fair. The tribunal noted that while she could have waited for the DSAR documents, her decision not to was reasonable given the circumstances.
The tribunal also considered the claimant's belief that his earlier complaints about working hours led to his dismissal. However, the evidence showed that the redundancy was driven by the loss of contract, and the timing of the PIPs and warnings did not establish a link.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals will look at the overall fairness of the redundancy process, not just whether every step was perfect. If you are at risk of redundancy, it is important to engage with the consultation process and raise any concerns about scoring early. Waiting until the appeal may limit your ability to challenge the decision. The case also highlights that an appeal does not have to be perfect to be fair, as long as it is reasonable in the circumstances.
Similar cases
Ramp allocator with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed over subjective redundancy interview
A ramp allocator with 23 years' service was unfairly dismissed after Menzies Aviation used subjective interview-based selection criteria for redundancy. The tribunal awarded £31,373.68 in compensation.
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 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.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.