Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4325 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Dear Sirs,

I hope you can help me. Last month we were told that all people in our team were at risk of redundancy (over 20 people), and that only half the number of positions would be created for the people who stay. There are 3 people in my group and only 2 positions available.

I was told that after the selection criteria was taken into account, I had got the same score as one of my colleagues, so that we both would have to go through a job interview for the post. I was extremely surprised to hear this and asked to see my scores. I also contacted my manager in writing and asked that both of us were given the opportunity to see the criteria and score before the interview. To no account.

Just after the interview I had my second 121 meeting. I was so exhausted and drained that I did not ask for the score then, and they were not offered. I was later informed that I had been unsuccessful in the interview and therefore will be losing my job.

I believe that because the scores were not produced before a decision was taken, this redundancy process lacks of fairness. I was later given the criteria and the scores, and there are quite a lot of scores I could have challenged. Rather than challenging them before the interview, as I think was the fair thing to do, I will now have to appeal against the decision taken.

I need to get some information about the Absence / Sickness criteria in particular, as it was actually the criteria that put us at the same level.

I have 6.5 days off sick, and my colleague has 5. The judgement call was as follows:

- High (>10 days) =0

- Medium (6-10 days) = 5

- None/Low (0-5 days) =10

That means that she got 5 points more than me in this criteria, and as a result of that, we got the same total of points. Therefore, the sickness was the score that decided our totals.

I find this very difficult to accept as fair. I hear that the tribunals favour a system that calculates sickness based in the number of occasions and not the number of days. We both had 3 occasions, and therefore would have got the same number of points. My totals would then have been higher than hers.

Also, I find it difficult to accept that even if they use the number of days, they are used in grades, so that one day more or less can mean a difference of 5 points. The fair thing to do would be deducting one point per day off, so she would have got 5 points and I would have got 3.5. Still 2.5 more total points than her.

Could you please give me your expert views about this score?

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it seems like a reasonbly fair scoring system, they dont have to spend eternity making a sytem that is amazingly complicated.


You dont mention other scores based in your performance etc, do they hold much more weight ?



Link to post
Share on other sites

As Andy has said, the relative weightings of the different categories are much more important than the bandings within the categories. (Remember that the scoring within the categories should apply the same for everyone therefore 'fair').


As there were over 20 people involved, by law there should have been a consultation period where these types of issues should have been discussed/negotiated as well as attempting to reduce the need for redundancies.


If meaningful consultations did not take place (either with Union reps or employees specifically elected for this purpose) then the redundancy procedure could be called into question.


Appealing on the scores alone is more difficult than appealing on the application of the process. If you can demonstrate that they have not applied the process the same to everyone then you might have a prima facie case of unfairness.

Nationwide - Prelim sent 02/07 - MCOL filed 04/07 CHARGES SETTLED IN FULL!!

Woolwich- Prelim sent 04/07 - Offered 90% - 06/07 accepted

MBNA - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 03/07 - CCA reply (illegible + no T&Cs) - DCA sent packing - Restons now trying - gone quiet

Citicard - Prelim sent 02/07 - CCA request sent 04/07 - replied 04/07 No contract & not enforcing!- passed to 1st Credit- gone quiet

Egg - Prelim sent 02/08 - 3 letters - full offer 03/08 SETTLED IN FULL!!

(All starry, rep, clicky thingies gratefully received!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...