Guide to gender pay gap reporting
The gender pay gap shows the difference between the average earnings of men and women.Read more
In the recent case of Mr C Smith -v- IBM United Kingdom Ltd:1305836/2018, an employment tribunal sitting in Birmingham decided that Mr Smith had been unfairly selected for redundancy.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair on the basis that:
The tribunal therefore decided that the dismissal was unfair and did not attempt to ‘re-score’ the claimant, making the decision that they were unable to determine what the outcome would have been had the selection for redundancy been fair. As there were two people in the pool for selection, the tribunal decided that there was at least a 50% chance that the claimant would have been selected fairly for redundancy. As such, the compensation to be awarded to him would be reduced by this amount.
This case is a helpful reminder that a redundancy procedure needs to be more than just a box-ticking exercise. Whilst tribunals tend to accept that some subjective aspect to scoring is legitimate, they will also tend to take the view that it is unfair to rely solely on subjective factors when applying scores to criteria.
Moreover, if an employer is going to rely mainly on subjective assessments, they will need to go into greater depth when consulting with employees to ensure that the individual has had sufficient opportunity to challenge the scores.
A link to this case can be found here.
Please note, the information included in this update is correct at the date of publishing.
For more information regarding this case or for any other employment-related issues, please contact us on 01332 226 149 or complete the form below.
Scroll to next section
Scroll back to the top