Mrs Maureen Young v Represented by: Mr G Flaherty - Lay Representative Dsv Road Ltd — 2022

Mrs Maureen Young was employed by DSV Road Ltd as a customer service adviser from 10 November 1997 until her dismissal on 31 July 2020. The tribunal found that, in March 2020, the respondent had to reduce staff because of the impact of the pandemic and later decided to centralise general customer service work, leaving a reduced need for customer service advisers at the Hamilton depot. The claimant was selected for furlough first, and then selected for redundancy after a scoring exercise placed her lowest in her team.

The tribunal held that redundancy was a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996 and that the relevant pool for selection was within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that the respondent used a multi-factor selection matrix covering knowledge, performance, skills, experience, versatility, qualifications, disciplinary record, attendance and time-keeping, and found that the exclusion of length of service was a deliberate decision taken because of the risk of age discrimination.

On the application of the selection criteria, the tribunal found that the claimant did not materially challenge her individual scores and that there was no evidential basis to say the scoring was improper or pre-determined. It accepted that the claimant’s line manager, Jane Sherlock, was an appropriate person to carry out the scoring because she had worked closely with the team for years. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the absence of a formal appraisal system made the exercise unfair.

The tribunal further found that consultation was genuine and reasonable. It noted that the respondent held multiple meetings with the claimant, allowed her to be accompanied by her brother, provided her with her matrix and answered her appeal points, and even arranged an additional meeting before dismissal so she could raise further queries. It also found that alternative employment was considered, including relocation, vacancies in other offices and part-time work, but the claimant did not want to pursue those options. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.