Our client was made redundant from his role as Project Director at a large multi-national technology company. Before he was put at risk of redundancy he had raised 3 grievances about the fact that he had suffered race discrimination in relation to promotion, salary and training opportunities and the fact that his job title had been changed such that he had been victimised for raising a grievance.
Our client was put into a pool of 5 Project Managers for redundancy selection. The company wrote to our client explaining the process for selection and the selection criteria that would be applied to the redundancy pool. Our client met with his manager as part of the consultation process to discuss the redundancy proposal and followed this up with a list of 28 questions on the redundancy selection criteria. The employer responded to each of those questions and informed our client that he had been provisionally scored and provisionally selected for redundancy.
Our client explained that the company’s assessment of his skills was not comprehensive and was based on an out of date CV. Our client provided the company with an updated CV so that they could review the selection process. The company increased our client’s score but he was still one of the two lowest scorers. The company wrote to our client to inform him that his position was being made redundant. Our client appealed against the decision and the company rejected his appeal after an appeal hearing.
The company had argued that the redundancy situation was genuine based on statistical evidence which showed that there was less work for Project Directors. Whilst our client disputed the statistical evidence it was largely for the company to make its own commercial decision as to how to restructure the organisation. There was no evidence that the redundancy was tied to the grievance procedure other than the mere timing of events.
In terms of the redundancy selection pool, there were in fact 6 Project Managers but only 5 were included in the selection pool on the basis that the employer considered that one of the project managers had sufficient technical experience to justify his de-selection from the pool.
How We Helped
Our client had the same level of technical experience as this individual who was de-selected from the pool. On that basis Employment Law Solicitor Michael Simpson argued that it was unfair and unreasonable for the company to retain our client in the selection pool.
Furthermore, Michael showed that our client’s role was interchangeable with other employees (there was an overlap in the work that they did with our client) such that it was arguable that it was unreasonable for these employees to be excluded from the selection pool.
The selection criteria used by the company included billing targets, technical experience, salary and willingness to travel. Michael argued that the implementation of the selection criteria was so subjective that it demonstrated victimisation as it relied heavily on our client’s manager’s opinion of his capabilities.
Michael also showed that our client was not fairly considered for alternative employment in vacant roles during the redundancy process, and as such that he was unfairly dismissed.
Michael pursued our client’s claim by issuing proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, obtaining further disclosure of critical evidence from the employer and gathered witness statements to support our client’s claim.
Employment Law Solicitor Michael Simpson settled our client’s claim for £30,000 prior to the full hearing and secured a reference for prospective employers as part of an ACAS negotiated COT3 settlement agreement.