Employers should consider giving reasons for the scores on redundancy selection criteria as part of the consultation process with an employee, particularly where a subjective criterion is used.

In this case a low score was given for flexibility without there being any prior mention of flexibility concerns eg in appraisals. There was a small pool of three employees and their marks were close. In these circumstances the failure to provide the employee with the reasons for his score to enable him to challenge it rendered his dismissal unfair.

The EAT commented that further explanation of scores on objective criteria (eg attendance or productivity) may not be necessary. (Pinewood Repro Ltd (t/a County Print) v Page, EAT)

Where a senior role is at risk, an employer should consult over the selection pool including the possibility of bumping.

It was unfair for an employer to automatically assume that, where a single senior role was at risk, there would be a selection pool of one. The case serves as a reminder of the need always to assess whether bumping might be appropriate and to consult with the individual over the pool, starting with a discussion as to whether they would consider a more junior role with lower pay.

However, the mere fact that the two employees had both carried out the other's functions at certain times was not sufficient in itself to require the pool to include both individuals. The other factors set out in Leventhal v North (see here) should also be considered. (Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) v Bonassera, EAT)