Selection for redundancy

Case 7: The facts

Frank Cassidy was selected for redundancy on the basis of a "last in, first out" (LIFO) selection criterion. He claimed that this was unfair and that his employer had failed to consult him.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that LIFO was a fair selection criterion and that the tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal through lack of consultation could not stand. Cassidy's employer had discussed his redundancy with him on more than one occasion, and had offered to hold a meeting at his home when he was unable to attend work following an accident.

The fact that Cassidy had refused to attend a meeting was a relevant factor that should be considered, the EAT said. The case was remitted to a fresh tribunal.

Turck Banner v Cassidy EATS/0098/03

Case 8: The facts

Ms Sangster was made redundant. There was no doubt that her redundancy was genuine, but she claimed that her selection for redundancy was unfair.

The ruling

The EAT held that Sangster's employer had inconsistently applied the redundancy procedure by referring to a performance review form but reducing the marks that she had been given at that review.

It also found that the manager responsible for the redundancy scoring exercise had already formed his decision prior to meeting Sangster to discuss redundancy selection, and that this was unfair.

Neither error had been corrected on appeal, and the EAT upheld the tribunal's finding that Sangster had been unfairly dismissed.

Dixons Stores v Sangster UKEAT/0205/04