19 May 2011 #Employment
In Dabson v David Cover & Sons (2011), the EAT has upheld the ET decision that the dismissal of the Claimant on grounds of redundancy was fair. The EAT held that when assessing the fairness of selection for redundancy, the marks awarded in the selection exercise should only be investigated in exceptional circumstances, such as bias or obvious mistake.
Due to restructuring, the Claimant was placed in a pool of three from which two employees would be appointed to two posts; one manager role and one assistant role. The Claimant`s boss scored the highest for the manager role and was given the role. The Claimant`s boss then marked the scores for the assistant role. The Claimant scored one point below the other candidate and was made redundant.
The Claimant argued that it was illogical for the Respondent to mark him lower for the same skills required for the less senior post of assistant, than he had achieved for the more senior post of manager. Further, he alleged his boss admitted an error in his marking.
The EAT rejected the above arguments. The EAT were satisfied that the Claimant`s boss had not admitted making an error in his marking and that it was possible, in the absence of obvious mistake or good faith, for the Claimant to have scored different marks in relation to the same criteria due to the different levels of the roles.