The claimant worked as a security guard for the respondent which provides security services for the Belfast Telegraph. In 2015, the respondent was informed by its client that it would be selling its building and moving to smaller premises.  The implication for the respondent was that the number of security officers would be reduced and redundancies were inevitable.

Staff were asked to reduce hours and were ultimately informed of a redundancy selection process after which the claimant was made redundant. The respondent adopted both ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ criteria and the claimant had marks deducted for a number of incidents of difficult behaviour and attitude in the recent past.  The respondent had also decided not to have regard to any staff appraisals or to disciplinary proceedings more than a year before the redundancy assessments.

The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had applied fair and appropriate criteria in a measured way and the claim of unfair dismissal was rejected.

Practical Lessons

A common issue raised by employees when challenging their redundancy selection is that the criteria were too subjective and consequently unfair. As the EAT in England and Wales have previously noted, subjectivity ought not to be considered a ‘dirty word’ and it is entirely understandable that considerations such as ‘flexibility’ and ‘motivation’ cannot be objectively gauged.

The tribunal here noted that the addition of a subjective set of criteria, clearly segregated from the objective criteria, was a logical and necessary addition to the criteria document. In this case the need for those criteria was only heightened by the small size of the business and the fact that ensuring they did not lose the client contract in the future was imperative. After already suffering a severe cut in its contract with its client such criteria were essential.

Employers may find it easier to justify particular criteria when they can point to the genuine business need to retain employees with those skills.