Redundacy selection methods
Discussion
Not me luckily but a colleague is at risk of redundancy.
The business are scoring people's skills as a "fair" method of selection but have said they are reducing his scores due to a period of sick he had last year, this was fully signed off sick leave paid with a note from his GP.
To me this appears to be discriminatory, any expert advice?
The business are scoring people's skills as a "fair" method of selection but have said they are reducing his scores due to a period of sick he had last year, this was fully signed off sick leave paid with a note from his GP.
To me this appears to be discriminatory, any expert advice?
Unless the absence is related to a disability then it's perfectly fair and indeed common practice to factor it into a redundancy scoring exercise. That's the case even though it's a genuine sickness-related (rather than lead-swinging) absence and the employee has complied with reporting and certification requirements.
If it's disability-related then, put simply, the employer should disregard it.
If it's disability-related then, put simply, the employer should disregard it.
zooky said:
Unless the absence is related to a disability then it's perfectly fair and indeed common practice to factor it into a redundancy scoring exercise. That's the case even though it's a genuine sickness-related (rather than lead-swinging) absence and the employee has complied with reporting and certification requirements.
If it's disability-related then, put simply, the employer should disregard it.
Pretty much this.If it's disability-related then, put simply, the employer should disregard it.
Swampy1982 said:
Is depression not covered under disability?
It might be - there's no one-word answer. Depression is an "impairment" - which satisfies the first part of the Equality Act's definition of disability. You then have to go and look at whether in the particular case the impairment has a "substantial and long term adverse effect" on the person's ability to carry out "normal day to day activities". You can see how severe chronic depression might do so, whereas a transient period of mild depression will not. PS AFAIK the scoring system has to be objective, i.e. if two people have had three days sick each you cannot score one differently because they had a real broken arm, while the other just had a 'bit of a cold'. Also the scores in different categories can be weighted to give the final result. A skilful HR department can adjust the weighting to make sure that they keep the people that they want to keep, e.g. by increasing or reducing the weight that is put on 'time off sick'. The scoring system should be accessible.
Ultimately the only recourse if he disagrees is to be made redundant and then try for an unfair dismissal award. (Notwithstanding union involvement of course.)
Ultimately the only recourse if he disagrees is to be made redundant and then try for an unfair dismissal award. (Notwithstanding union involvement of course.)
andburg said:
Not me luckily but a colleague is at risk of redundancy.
The business are scoring people's skills as a "fair" method of selection but have said they are reducing his scores due to a period of sick he had last year, this was fully signed off sick leave paid with a note from his GP.
To me this appears to be discriminatory, any expert advice?
Sickness (bradford index score) & disciplinary record over the previous 24 months were featured in our last scoring criteria for redundancy selection, there was other stuff too, like performance in current role, the last 2 years annual assessments & potential to develop in current & future roles. There is generally lots of criteria that can be used, that are broken down into core = every role has them e.g. sickness & disaplinary and job specific so they can pick criteria relevant to a job type. If they want to score you out of a job its not too difficult if you pick the right criteria. Sickness for a disability covered under the Equality Act however, can be a different matter e.g. diabetes.The business are scoring people's skills as a "fair" method of selection but have said they are reducing his scores due to a period of sick he had last year, this was fully signed off sick leave paid with a note from his GP.
To me this appears to be discriminatory, any expert advice?
We always disclose the criteria and scoring inc weighting used for redundancy selection but you only ever get to see your total number unless you seek to challenge the result and never that of anybody else.
Shep
Edited by shep1001 on Wednesday 18th January 15:45
brrapp said:
Sorry for being thick, but I understood that it was the post, not the person that became redundant and unless a large number of employees are all doing exactly the same job then the employer can't make someone redundant then give someone else their work to do. Or am I wrong?
Following a reduction in the amount of work, say the loss of a contract, typically results in a reduction in the amount of resources required without eliminating a role completely. The devil can be in the detail of a persons contract, location, geography of a role etcSwampy1982 said:
Is depression not covered under disability?
In can be. Read the Mind guide to discrimination at work as a starting point.curlyks2 said:
Swampy1982 said:
Is depression not covered under disability?
In can be. Read the Mind guide to discrimination at work as a starting point.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff