E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103948/2018 Held in Glasgow on and August 2018 Employment Judge: F J Garvie Mr J Sneddon v Kelvin KBB Ltd — 2018

The claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from his selection for redundancy. The respondent accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, and the tribunal found that the claimant’s employment ended on 4 January 2018 after a consultation process that began with the announcement of proposed redundancies on 30 November 2017 and an individual consultation meeting on 5 December 2017. The claimant received his own scoring documents and an at-risk letter, but he did not attend the final meeting on 7 December 2017 and did not appeal the dismissal. He later raised a grievance on 12 February 2018, after his employment had ended.

The tribunal held that the relevant issue was fairness under section 98 ERA 1996, not whether the tribunal would have chosen a different scoring method. It accepted that the respondent used a redundancy selection matrix based on skillset, productivity, attendance and disciplinary record, with length of service used only as a tie-break. The tribunal found that the claimant was one of eight employees in the relevant pool, that Miss MacLeod was not in that pool, and that the respondent was entitled to decide which staff were scored for particular criteria. It also found that the claimant was not singled out in not being scored for customer care, because other employees were similarly not scored for that category.

The tribunal found no bad faith and no material error affecting the outcome. It noted that there was some lack of clarity in the evidence about the absence scoring, but concluded that even if there had been an error in the attendance and disciplinary scoring of some other employees, it would not have altered the claimant’s overall ranking. The claimant’s total score remained materially below those nearest to him in the ranking, so any adjustment would not have changed the selection outcome. The tribunal also accepted the respondent’s evidence that the line manager was not included in the selection pool, despite an imprecise reference to the “whole office” during consultation.

Relying on the authorities discussed in the hearing, including Buchanan v Tilcon Ltd and John Brown Engineering Limited v Brown, the tribunal held that the respondent was not required to disclose the scores of other employees and that the claimant had no legal entitlement to compare his scores with retained employees. It also accepted the respondent’s position that the 12-month assessment period was a matter for management judgment. Applying those findings, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed for a fair reason and was fairly selected for redundancy, so the claim was dismissed and no award was made.