Employers enjoy a high degree of flexibility when choosing redundancy selection criteria, says Antoine Tinnion
In Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers) Ltd v Tattersall [2012] UKEAT/0605/11/SM, Lord Neuberger, the country’s most senior judge, has given his approval to the trend away from requiring employers to use objective selection criteria in redundancy situations.
Mr Tattersall worked for the respondent, a small brewing and hotel company, as its property manager. His duties entailed managing the maintenance team and liaising with local authorities on planning and regulatory matters. He reported to the board of directors, and was one of its five member senior management team (SMT).
In 2010, the respondent was in financial difficulties. When cost-cutting measures proved insufficient, the respondent decided to have compulsory redundancies in its head-office and to dismiss one member of its SMT.
At a board meeting, the directors decided to use only one redundancy selection criterion: to identify the member of the SMT “whose post could be abolished with the minimum detrimental impact on the business”.
Applying that criterion, the board selected
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
