Mr B Jones, Counsel (by CVP) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from a redundancy exercise at British Airways. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and therefore considered fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, with the usual redundancy authorities including Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd and Williams v Compair Maxam in mind. The judge also recorded that the case was heard on liability only, so if the claimant had succeeded there would have been a separate remedy hearing.

The tribunal found that individual consultation was adequate. The claimant had been offered one-to-one consultation in July 2020 and did not take it up. The judge rejected the claimant's explanation that he had not realised he was at risk of redundancy, finding that the correspondence from the Engineering Director in June and July 2020, together with the information pack, made the redundancy situation clear.

On selection, the tribunal found that the respondent and the unions had agreed criteria based on the mandatory qualifications M7, M6 and M5, with higher qualifications only relevant as a tie-break. The claimant did not have M7, M6 or M5 at the relevant cut-off date and scored 0 under the agreed criteria. Mr Shearer nevertheless awarded him 1 point, weighted to 0.7, to reflect his higher qualification, but that still left him below the cut-off of 1.4. The judge rejected the claimant's case that he had previously held M7, M6 and M5, rejected the argument that his external Certificate A/A3/2 should have been counted twice, and rejected the suggestion that his experience or acting-up work should have attracted separate points because the agreed system did not provide for that.

The appeal process was also found fair. The tribunal accepted that the appeal was handled as a paper review in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the number of employees in the selection pool. Mr Rai had the claimant's grounds of appeal, understood them, and had enough information from SAP and the paperwork to determine the appeal without a hearing. The tribunal therefore concluded that the selection criteria, their application, and the appeal all fell within the range of reasonable responses, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.