okay in today's video I want to take a look at a recent decision an interesting
decision indeed from WRC he had to do with the question of selection for
indolence II the situation was that it was some sort of I think a local default
development operation or scheme or some sort of a local community scheme whereby
there was government funding for various positions there was I think something
like nine supervisors and government funding was caught back and it was going
to be seven supervisors going forward so the employer then the board or the body
that was running the scheme and responsible for the scheme and
responsible for the money coming from the government how to find two
redundancies one person one supervisor took voluntary redundancy so the left
end with one compulsory redundancy that they needed to make so they said about
her in what they considered to be a professional way and the cadena next
I'll hate your consumption person and they got in the drew up some criteria
some independent criteria by which to have essentially a competition whereby
the existing seven or eight supervisors were going to apply for their positions
and one person would be unsuccessful and then one person would be made redundant
in this situation they filled out they got the supervisor rather to fill out
forms some sort of application forms which involved the matrix that they
arrived us and this had a series of questions that the supervisor had to
answer supervisors answered this and then they also did an interview
and after the interview and after the process was carried out one supervisor
was identified for a redundancy he had scored the least as far as the employer
was concerned the fact that was an independent matrix of criteria drawn up
and they arrived at it fairly and so on as far as they were concerned any way
they could terminate the employment of the supervisor on the basis of his
having failed to score well and having come last essentially in his competition
so he was the first person to be going he didn't take this well and felt that
the whole thing was unfair and it was didn't afford natural justice and
involved unfair criteria criteria essentially to arrive at a decision
which would see his employment being terminated by reason of redundancy he
appealed the decision one of the grounds for his appeal was that a person who was
there for a much shorter period of time than him and had much less experience
was successful in scoring much higher than he had and he couldn't understand
this because he had something like four years additional service over and above
the other person but the other big issue that he had was to do with the criteria
and some of the criteria or some of the decisions involved looking us three
things three things which he argued were subjective and should not be used in the
selection procedure and they were his disciplinary record his ability to
cooperate and kurama's colleagues and his attendance record so those three
things he felt were unfair and unreasonable and should not have been
used as criteria however you don't successful in his appeal and he was paid
nine thousand I think three hundred thirty six euros but he was paid off on
Iran I got a little over nine grand he was successful in getting you
employment put in any event he still brought a claim to the WRC against this
employer because he said it was the essentially unfairly dismissed by reason
of his having been unfairly chosen in other words the selection process wasn't
fair and it was essentially something that was drawn off to get rid of him it
was personal to him and he went to the WRC and he won his case and he won his
case on the basis that the adjudicator found that the criteria that the
employer would use in a situation like this where they must distinguish between
one employee and another in terms of fair selection the criteria must be
objective and the judiciary found excuse me that the criteria of his disciplinary
record his attendance record and his cooperation or lack of cooperation with
colleagues these were characteristics that were
personal to him these were subjective criteria and there
were personal criteria to another objective criteria and the whole
question of redundancy arises around the central sort of tenet of the
impersonality of the decision in other words it's the position that's gone he
played the ball not the man and this situation he was successful now we had
secured a new employment since his termination he obviously had received
his redundancy payment as well so the judicata found in no financial loss both
awarded him one month's salary in recognition of the fact that he was
unfairly like this the criteria used were subjective non objective and
essentially then consequence used unfairly dismissed so
choppy too careful if you're an employer when it comes to choosing a person for
redundancy if you have to make a choice between one person and another then the
criteria that you use must be fair must be rational must be transparent and must
be objective not subjective you must trade the ball laughter man and
I hope you find this video useful if you do I would appreciate if you give it a
thumbs up down below and you may be interested in subscribing to my youtube
channel thanks