Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Collective redundancyCase lawEmployment lawLegal sectorLatest News

Redundancy: Five common errors businesses must avoid

by Will Clayton 28 Oct 2022
by Will Clayton 28 Oct 2022 Redundancy errors can eat into the cost savings employers are looking to make when downsizing. Photo: Shutterstock
Redundancy errors can eat into the cost savings employers are looking to make when downsizing. Photo: Shutterstock

Firms that enter financial difficulties in the coming months and need to shed staff risk compounding their difficulties if they fail to manage redundancy programmes properly. Will Clayton examines the common errors made by companies when making staff redundant

UK businesses are bracing themselves for yet another economic storm, which will bring a flurry of redundancy instructions for employment lawyers as businesses seek costs savings.

The last thing businesses will want to do is to compound their financial problems with avoidable errors in the redundancy process that render cost-saving dismissals unfair. That would merely store up further financial liabilities for another day of up to 52 weeks’ gross pay or, if lower, £93,878.

This article highlights, with examples, those areas of an “ordinary” redundancy process (this article does not deal with statutory collective consultation processes), which if poorly planned or executed can lead to findings of unfair dismissal.

1. Calling it redundancy when it isn’t

Redundancy has a specific legal meaning and arises when there is either a business closure, a workplace closure or the employer’s diminished or diminishing requirements for employees to do work of a particular kind, according to section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. When companies are focused on costs savings, that definition is sometimes overlooked. Take the example of Bob, a car mechanic with 15 years’ experience. Bob’s employer is considering making him redundant for financial reasons because they have found someone else with five years’ experience who can do Bob’s work for 20% less pay. That is not a redundancy situation. There may be a pressing business need to make those savings which Bob’s employer might be able to justify as a “dismissal for some other substantial reason”. However, the business requirements for employees to do the work that Bob is employed to do have not diminished. So dismissing Bob for redundancy is unfair.

2. Late or inadequate consultation

The fundamental obligation on employers in redundancy situations is always to consult with employees about key aspects of the redundancy decision making process when those questions are still in their “formative stages”, ie before the “big decisions” are made and when the employees still have an opportunity to influence those decisions. Those big decisions generally relate to how the employer will choose the pool at risk, the selection criteria to be used and the steps they will take to avoid or minimise the impact of redundancies across the workforce.

The recent EAT decision in Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is a classic example of a needless employer blunder which meant that Nurse Mogane’s redundancy dismissal was always going to be legally unfair: The Trust needed to make redundancies within Nurse Mogane’s unit for “financial reasons”. Nurse Mogane and one other colleague were employed on fixed-term contracts. Without consulting Nurse Mogane or her colleague, the Trust decided it would select on the basis of which employee’s fixed-term contract was due to expire the soonest. The decision simultaneously determined both that Nurse Mogane was in a pool of one and that she would be dismissed. This, the EAT held, was unfair: “Whilst a pool of one can be fair in appropriate circumstances, it should not be considered, without prior consultation, where there is more than one employee.”

3. Unfair selection criteria

No issue is more important to the fairness of a redundancy than the criteria used to select from the pool of affected employees. Selection criteria should avoid subjectivity, not unlawfully discriminate and be capable of objective measurement. Examples of subjective criteria torpedoed by previous employment tribunal decisions include: “Attitude” (Graham v ABF); “Buy-in to company values” (Howard v Siemens Energy Services); “Someone who, in the opinion of the manager concerned, would keep the company viable” (Williams). Redundancy selection criteria which offend equality law will almost certainly render dismissals unfair. A recent example of unlawfully discriminatory redundancy criteria, which were not found to be justified, is Willis v National Westminster Bank. Here, the London Central Employment Tribunal found direct evidence of a decision by NatWest to take action against Ms Willis, who had bowel cancer, because she was due to take time off for cancer treatment. It then found her subsequent dismissal on the purported grounds of redundancy was tainted with discrimination.

4. Unfair selection

Having a robust and objective set of redundancy selection criteria will not save the employer who fails to apply the criteria fairly. For example, an employer who used a verbal warning for unacceptable performance to mark down an employee’s scores under more than one of the five criteria in use, was held by the EAT to be a “fundamental and obvious error in the application of the procedure” (Carlo Technical Plastics v Jeyanthikumar).

A lack of transparency and good faith when applying criteria is also a no-no. Take, the case of Mr Lovell (Lovell v Northampton College ET Case No.1201910/10) who was selected for redundancy by Northampton College when he was given a low score for “performance” about concerns that had never been addressed with him and which were not reflected in his appraisals.

5. Failure to consider alternatives to dismissal

Employers are expected to consult affected employees about the availability of any reasonable alternatives to dismissal. Where relevant, that can also include vacancies across the wider group. It will seldom be a good look, in the context of an unfair dismissal case, if a claimant shows that other parts of the business were inviting applications for suitable positions without considering whether they were suitable alternatives to redundancy.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Employers are therefore well advised to alert all departments (and, where practicable, group businesses) when redundancies are being considered.

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more human resources jobs

Will Clayton

Will Clayton is a specialist employment lawyer with over 25 years’ experience. A partner-consultant with Constantine Law, Mr Clayton also successfully represented the claimant in the above-mentioned case of Ms. A Willis v National Westminster Bank plc ET/2205821/2020.

previous post
Bullying and discrimination at NHS Blood and Transplant
next post
Flexible Working Bill to be debated today

You may also like

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

British Steel puts brakes on redundancy process

23 Apr 2025

British Steel: MPs recalled to enable nationalisation

11 Apr 2025

Met Police cuts 1,700 officers and staff in...

3 Apr 2025

Top 10 HR questions March 2025: Carrying over...

2 Apr 2025

Sky to close call centres cutting 2,000 jobs

28 Mar 2025

Reasons behind Dundee University job losses to be...

28 Mar 2025

British Steel to shed 2,700 jobs at Scunthorpe...

27 Mar 2025

April 2025: What’s coming up for HR?

21 Mar 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

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 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+