Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionSickness absence managementRace discriminationDismissal

Case of the week: Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust

by Personnel Today 21 Mar 2011
by Personnel Today 21 Mar 2011

Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust

FACTS

Dr Arhin was employed as a consultant and assistant director by Enfield Primary Care Trust. In 2006, the trust undertook a reorganisation that resulted in Dr Arhin being made redundant on 30 June 2007.

Another doctor employed in the same two capacities, Dr Stewart, was retained. Dr Arhin brought claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The tribunal found that she had not been discriminated against but had been unfairly dismissed.

The tribunal said that, although there was a genuine redundancy situation, the trust acted unfairly by failing to put Dr Arhin and Dr Stewart in a pool to enable a competitive selection procedure to take place. The trust had carried out a “slotting in” exercise, which was not appropriate where more than one employee was eligible for the new post.

However, the tribunal made a 100% Polkey deduction and awarded no compensation on the basis that Dr Arhin had no chance of achieving the post in a competitive selection procedure. The tribunal made findings of fact that Dr Arhin would have been dismissed in any event, due to long term-sickness absence, and that Dr Stewart had more relevant experience which would better fit the post-reorganisation structure. Dr Arhin appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and subsequently to the Court of Appeal.

DECISION

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that there was sufficient evidence before the tribunal to form a tenable view of what the outcome of a fair competitive selection procedure would have been and the tribunal’s decision that such a procedure would not have led to Dr Arhin being appointed was not perverse.

IMPLICATIONS

“Slotting in” is a common process in the public sector, whereby appropriate employees are identified to fill new roles in a reorganised structure without undergoing competitive application or selection.

It may be appropriate, for example, for posts to be filled by a simple slotting-in process where there are the same number of posts in the new structure and these posts remain wholly or largely unchanged to the roles that the employees potentially at risk were carrying out.

As identified in this case, it will not be appropriate where there is more than one employee who is eligible for the new role.

Where an employer has failed to carry out a competitive selection exercise where one was required, it will be rare, but not impossible, for the tribunal to be able to say that the claimant would not have been appointed, leading to a 100% Polkey deduction. The question is not whether or not the tribunal can predict with confidence all that would have occurred; rather it is whether or not it can make any assessment with sufficient confidence about what is likely to have happened, using its common sense, experience and sense of justice.

Alan Chalmers, partner, DLA Piper












Practical guidance from XpertHR on redundancy selection


How to choose and apply redundancy selection criteria Create and apply redundancy selection criteria fairly with XpertHR’s “how to” guide.

Redundancy selection matrix Use this redundancy selection matrix to assess employees’ value to the organisation when considering making redundancies from a pool of employees. The scores arrived at will form the basis of management decisions as to whom to select for redundancy.


Get more information on redundancy selection in the XpertHR FAQs section




  • In a redundancy situation, how should an employer select which employees to make redundant?



  • Is “last in, first out” still a valid redundancy selection criterion?



  • In a collective redundancy situation, what should the workforce be consulted about?

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Government eases employment regulations for small firms
next post
Halfords Cycle2work awarded Public Sector Framework Agreement with perfect 100% score

You may also like

Insight into severity of menopause symptoms

27 May 2022

P&O Ferries boss denies reputational damage after mass...

27 May 2022

‘Inequality is embedded in our labour market’ says...

27 May 2022

Monkeypox advice for employers: working from home and...

26 May 2022

Breaking the bias – how to make a...

26 May 2022

Employers lack data to make IR35 worker status...

25 May 2022

Maternity leave: Cost of living crisis highlights need...

25 May 2022

Tube strike on 6 June to see 4,000...

24 May 2022

Interim advice published on Covid autumn boosters

23 May 2022

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

  • The importance of being an ethical leader and how to become one PROMOTED | What is ethical leadership?...Read more
  • RPO Report: 2022, The Year to Outsource PROMOTED | Employers should be overwhelmed with choice...Read more
  • Report: Enabling organisational agility through talent & people success PROMOTED | Work has been challenged...Read more
  • Employee Trends 2022 report PROMOTED | Edenred research on employees analysed the key employees’ trends for 2022...Read more
  • How finance apprenticeships can boost business PROMOTED | As the world’s most forward-thinking professional accountancy body...Read more
  • Paul Devoy: Showing appreciation to the Investors in People community PROMOTED | Ask most people what comes to mind when you mention Investors in People...Read more
  • White paper: How digitalisation can support evolving occupational health PROMOTED | Download this free white paper to discover how digitalisation can help occupational health meet emerging challenges...Read more

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+