An EAT decision has been handed down today in the case of Mr N Bond v Urmet Donus Communication & Security UK Ltd concerning whether employers complied with the old statutory procedures in a redundancy dismissal.
Where is the relevance I hear you cry ? Given that the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures are no longer with us. Read on for the morale of the tale, or case, as it is still relevant to today’s post SDP world……
The issue was whether the Claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because of a failure to comply with the statutory procedure by virtue of the fact he was not informed as to how selection criteria were applied to him personally. The Tribunal found for the Respondent but the EAT disagreed and a finding of automatic unfair dismissal has been substituted.
Given this substitution and the EAT’s reliance on the cases of Alexander v Brigden and Davies v Farnborough College of Technology practical lessons to be learnt are:-
- individuals should have the opportunity to make representations in relation to selection criteria and alternatives to redundancy;
- but, this on its own is not enough. Individuals should also be given the opportunity to challenge the application of selection criteria to them and to understand why they were being made redundant.
- Whilst there is not always a requirement to give particular marks to an employee in every case, an employer must give sufficient information in relation to how the criteria were applied to give him the opportunity of challenging and correcting and supplementing the information
Whilst failure to do the above will not now render a dismissal automatically unfair, it will be relevant as to the overall issue of fairness and Tribunals may still be referred to these authorities in support of this.