In person. Assisted by an Interpreter: Ms A Kapronczai (Translati v Respondent — 2021

Mr A Czege was employed by Colour Marketing Limited as a Production Operative from 25 July 2016 until 31 July 2020. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was in a genuine redundancy situation after a trading loss in 2019, a further loss to January 2020, a bad debt in February 2020, and the impact of lockdown on orders. The claimant did not dispute that there was a redundancy situation, but contended that the selection and dismissal process was unfair.

The tribunal found that the respondent’s pool for selection, which included the workforce other than the directors and managers, was fair in the circumstances. It also found that the selection criteria, which included skills, timekeeping, disciplinary record, KPI performance, teamwork and aptitude, were sensible and within the range of what a reasonable employer could adopt. Although it would have been better to have an agreed method for the assessors, the tribunal held that the scoring exercise was fairly applied and found no bad faith, obvious error or overt sign of unfairness in the scores attributed to the claimant.

In relation to the claimant’s specific criticisms, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that his skills level was not particularly high compared with colleagues, that he had been warned about tidiness, that the KPI scoring was based on the respondent’s assessment of production performance and related factors, and that his teamwork score reflected his preference to work alone, his refusal to do overtime when others were absent, and his conduct around the Zoom meetings during lockdown. The tribunal also accepted that genuine consideration was given to alternative work, that Paulina had been transferred from office to factory work and was not a comparator in the way the claimant suggested, and that the people referred to as Matthew and Jbriela Lorens were zero-hours workers called in later for specific tasks when work increased.

Applying the section 98(4) ERA 1996 reasonableness test and the authorities it cited on redundancy selection and consultation, the tribunal held that the claimant and other staff were warned in good time, consulted before the scoring exercise, and that the procedure adopted was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.