Redundancy selection

sangie595

Detroit wrote: »

I believe the process is required to be transparent and fair, so you should be entitled to see the criteria used.
There are also legal requirements employers should follow depending on the number of people in the company effected.
It is possible to claim unfair selection for redundancy, and make other challenges if the employer fails to follow the correct procedure.
I would recommend you have a chat with ACAS to check your rights, particularly if you have a protected characteristic (race, disability, gender etc), and there is a possibility of discrimination.
While last in first out does risk age discrimination claims, it's still unofficially used in cases where the employees are fairly evenly matched. This is often simple economics, as it's obviously more expensive the longer the service, so shouldn't be taken personally.
Talk to ACAS, or go to CAB who can advise, and maybe refer you for free specialist employment advice.
You may not change the outcome, but if you feel strongly, it's worth looking into.

It wouldn't need to be used unofficially in such circumstances. "First in, last out" is a risky proposition where it is used as the sole factor in a determination. Length of service may be used as one of a number of factors, so in the situation you have posed, if all other things were equal then selecting on length of service would almost certainly be fair.

Detroit

Agreed. You're right of course.

Xikams

nobertgreen wrote: »

Is the company obliged to give a valid reason for having selected me?

Well it is practice, but they may make it up just the same. Has your company recently changed its MD or CEO? They may have decided to cut down staff to save money.

Are you part of a union or company equivalent? You may be able to argue for a payout. This happened with me in a previous company - the group put pressure on the company, and after the 'consultation period' (translation: sackings all round), ex-employees got cash depending on their length of employment.