Redundancy Selection

[Thanks to Ed McFarlane of EEF for providing this case summary]

The EAT (HHJ Ansell) has handed down its decision in County Print v Page, which is authority for the proposition that:

(i) fair consultation in a redundancy exercise involves giving an employee an explanation for his scoring and a meaningful chance to comment on the scores.

The EAT took an opportunity to review authorities in this area, and, whilst cautioning against an impermissible "microscopic analysis" of scoring by tribunals, indicated that, particularly with subjective criteria, employees should have sufficient information to understand their scores and an opportunity to challenge them.

(ii) Employers seeking to run a Polkey chance of dismissal in any event argument under Software 2000 must rely on "cogent evidence", rather than simply arguing that there was a percentage chance of dismissal. On the facts of this case, the EAT observed that it was "completely fallacious" to say that as the Claimant was in a pool of three, there was a one-in-three chance of dismissal, even on similar scores.