Redundancy Selection Criteria: What Counts as Fair (and What Doesn't)

Why selection is often the real issue, not the redundancy itself

Most people assume that if their role has genuinely gone, there's nothing to challenge. That's often wrong. Where an employer needs to reduce a group of similar roles — say, cutting three sales positions from a team of eight — the redundancy of the wider group can be entirely genuine while the process used to decide which three people leave is still unfair. Selection is where a lot of otherwise-solid redundancies fall apart.

What a fair selection process looks like

There's no single legally mandated set of criteria, but tribunals consistently look for the same features in a fair process:

• A defined selection pool — the group of employees genuinely at risk, not an artificially narrow pool designed to land on one person
• Objective, measurable criteria — things that can be scored with reference to evidence, such as disciplinary record, attendance (with appropriate adjustments for disability-related absence), relevant skills or qualifications, and performance against documented standards
• Consistent application — the same criteria and scoring standard applied to everyone in the pool, ideally by more than one manager independently, to reduce the effect of one person's bias
• A chance to challenge the outcome — typically the opportunity to see your scores, raise concerns, and appeal before the decision is final

Common criteria that cause problems

Some criteria are lawful in principle but risky in practice if used carelessly:

Length of service ("last in, first out") used as the sole or dominant factor can amount to indirect age discrimination, since it disproportionately disadvantages younger employees. It's usually fine as one factor among several, not the only one.

Attendance record that doesn't strip out disability-related absence, or absence connected to pregnancy, can expose an employer to a discrimination claim on top of an unfair dismissal claim.

Subjective "attitude" or "team fit" scoring with no evidence behind it is difficult to defend and is exactly the kind of criterion that invites a challenge, because there's nothing objective to point to if the score is disputed.

Scoring done by a single manager with no calibration against another manager's view of the same people raises an obvious bias risk, particularly if that manager has a personality clash with anyone in the pool.

Warning signs the process wasn't genuinely fair

• The pool was drawn narrowly enough that only one realistic outcome was possible
• You weren't told the criteria or your scores, or were given a vague explanation when you asked
• The criteria changed, or were introduced, after the employer had already decided who they wanted to lose
• Someone recently on maternity leave, sick leave, or who had raised a grievance scored conveniently low
• There was no meaningful consultation before the decision was confirmed

Any one of these on its own isn't automatically proof of unfairness, but taken together they're the pattern we look for when reviewing whether a redundancy selection can be challenged.

What you can do about it

If you've been selected and think the process was flawed, raising it during consultation — in writing, specifically — matters, because it creates a record and gives your employer the chance to fix it before dismissal takes effect. If dismissal goes ahead anyway, you may have grounds for an unfair dismissal claim, and depending on the circumstances, a discrimination claim as well. Many of these situations are resolved through a negotiated settlement agreement rather than a tribunal claim — see our guide on how a settlement agreement relates to redundancy for how that typically works, and use our redundancy pay calculator to check your statutory entitlement as a starting point.

Get Advice Now

If you've been put at risk of redundancy and something about the selection process doesn't feel right, call us on 020 3058 3365 or complete the form for a free, confidential assessment.