Employment law cases

All items: Redundancy selection criteria

  • Redundancy: Selection for alternative employment

    Date:
    9 May 2008

    In Ralph Martindale & Co Ltd v Harris EAT/0166/07, the EAT held that a redundancy dismissal was unfair where the process for deciding who should be offered an alternative post involved no objective criteria and no attempt to assess the candidates against a job description. It was unfair for the employer to rely mainly on a subjective assessment of whose management style would best suit the new post.

  • Redundancy selection criteria: Inconsistent application of selection criteria

    Date:
    17 November 2006

    In McCormack v Sanmina SCI UK Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 138 (Jul) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that redundancy dismissals that were procedurally unfair due to a lack of proper consultation were also unfair because of the employer's inconsistent approach to the assessment of willingness to work overtime and employees' skills range.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy selection criteria.