Mr M Ward v Royal British Legion Industries — 2023

In 2021 the respondent lost its contract extension as a subcontractor, with Access to Work referrals expected to reduce by 30% from 4 June 2021. It proposed a redundancy exercise affecting five full-time equivalent Holistic Assessor roles from a pool of 23. The selection matrix used objective data from MARS and HR records and three more subjective criteria assessed by Mr Barrett. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was given consultation meetings, scored 18 out of 33, and was later dismissed for redundancy on 24 June 2021.

Mr Ward argued that the criteria were insufficiently objective, that he had been deliberately underscored, and that the redundancy process was really driven by his complaints about working hours and the Working Time Regulations. The tribunal rejected a separate suggestion of a free-standing whistleblowing case, but treated the working-time issue as relevant to the alleged real reason for dismissal. It accepted that there was some potential for him to have been scored a little low on the subjective criteria D, E and F, but found no compelling evidence that the working-time complaints caused his selection. It also accepted Mr Barrett's evidence on the rework scores and found the objective criteria were properly measured.

On appeal, Mrs Bull reviewed the scoring and decided not to wait for further DSAR material before concluding the appeal. The tribunal held that this was reasonable because Mr Ward had not properly challenged the scoring during consultation, the appeal was not meant to be a rerun of consultation, and he had been given an opportunity to provide as much detail as he could. Applying Williams v Compair Maxam Limited and Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal found the dismissal fair. The separate disability discrimination claim in relation to dyslexia had already been withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal on 26 May 2023.