Redundnacy selection based on a year I was unwell

RoCk_StAr_GiRl

Hello,
Like many of you I have found myself in the terrible situation of being told my retail job is officially now 'at risk' of redundancy due to the effects of Covid. I work in a fairly large workplace (350+ employees) and my employer is looking to make around 1/4 of us redundant. I have been there for 15 years but apparently they aren't using that when making their decision. 

My store is using a rather unusual scoring matrix whereby the only way to gain advantage over my colleagues would be to have done additional jobs with the same company such as a secondment to a different department. This means lots of us have the same score (much more than are set to 'go') and they are therefore now making a decision based on our average mystery shop score over for the year 2019. 

In my case, I was actually in hospital with a severe illness for several months in 2019 and, as such, don't have a mystery shop score for the months I was off. My scores are generally great but I had one month where I had a bad month and this is currently bringing my average down massively due to the fact I was not working the full 12 months. y average has been worked out over 7 months instead of the 12 months. 

Would I have a case for asking them to take the average of the last 12 months in which I have a mystery shop score into consideration rather than just seven months? Or even my average for the year before? Or is this a lost cause and it's my fault for being off sick?

jonesMUFCforever

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'scores' ? Redundancy is based on salary and time of employment.

RoCk_StAr_GiRl

Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are selecting which members of staff will be made redundant based on their average mystery shop scores for the year 2019. As I was in hospital for several months, my 'average' has only been worked out over seven months as opposed to twelve so I feel it is not a true reflection of myself as an employee.

sharpe106

Other people would have been off as well during the year for whatever reason. I guess it is just unlucky that you were off all that time. You can ask but doubt they would as the criteria is the same for everybody. As they are averaging the score out it makes no difference to the result if you had 20 mystery shop scores or 2.

If they were saying you only had 2 and they had 15 mystery shoppers so we are keeping them then that would be unfair.

maisie_cat

Normalising the dataset, ensuring everybody is calculated in a fair way is correct, and using the average score over attended time looks fair. You can't possibly be the only person without 100% attendance in that time, so everybody will need to be adjusted for actual attendance.
It's not about "fault", you say had a bad month in the 7, that is what will drag the average down. Given the nature of mystery shoppers you actually had an advantage in that there were 5 months that there was no opportunity to give you a bad score. in order to use 12 months an assumption would have to be made for the missing 5, and assumptions are easier to challenge than facts.

getmore4less

Mystery shop performance is a measurable criteria often better than subjective measures. 

Why should you get to include more because you had a bad one?

Would appear your excess sick level has allready had allowances to get you to the tiebreaker.