Mr. Jaspal Dub Second Claimant: Mr. Bahadur Mann v Menzies Aviation (UK) Limited — 2023

The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for both Claimants' dismissals. It found that the Respondent had applied its mind to the selection pool and that limiting the pool to Terminal 2 Ramp Allocators, rather than including Terminal 3 Allocators, was not unfair given the different knowledge and training required for Terminal 3 roles.

The dismissals were found unfair because the selection criteria and interview process were not objective, measurable, precise, clear or transparent. The Claimants were not given sufficient advance information about the competencies to be tested, there was no standard answer or marking guide, and the interview notes were summaries rather than full records. The tribunal found that these features made it difficult for the Claimants to understand or challenge their scores during consultation or appeal.

For the first Claimant, the tribunal was not persuaded that the history between him and Steven Harrison led to intentional marking down, but found that this history reinforced the need for objective and measurable criteria. For the second Claimant, the tribunal found that technical difficulties during his Teams interview were likely to have impaired his performance and that it had not been made clear that the interview could be postponed. The tribunal declined to make any Polkey reduction, finding it could not be said that either Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.