When jobs cease in a business re-organisation, creating a redundancy situation, the duty to seek alternative employment inevitably involves those employees in the redundant jobs being assessed in terms of their suitability for new roles which have been created. But do the ‘objective’ standards which apply to selection for redundancy apply in exactly the same way as when deciding in a competitive selection exercise whether a redundant employee is suitable for a new position? This was the question the EAT had to address in this case.

Mr Morgan was the Elite Coach Manager at the Welsh Rugby Union. Mr Schropfer was the Community Coach Manager. As a result of reorganisation, both roles ceased, creating a redundancy situation. Within the new structure a new senior role was created, National Coach Manager, with overall strategic responsibility to develop and deliver coaching services. Both employees were interviewed for the new post. Both were considered capable, but the panel unanimously considered that Mr Schropfer was the best candidate for the job as his presentation showed he had a very clear vision for coaching. Mr Morgan was made redundant.

The employment tribunal rejected Mr Morgan’s claim of unfair dismissal. He argued that the selection process was unfair because the successful candidate had neither the qualifications nor the experience specified, his interview presentation had overrun by so long that he had not been subject to the same level of questioning as Mr Morgan and the selection decision was subjective.

While the interviews were plainly not identical in their structure, the tribunal were satisfied that the process was sufficiently objective to avoid the possibility of a decision which might be seen as impulsive or arising out of favouritism to Mr Schropfer. A job description for the new role had been prepared and the criteria for the new role could not be said to have been selected or otherwise dealt with in a subjective way.

The EAT rejected Mr Morgan’s appeal. The ‘objective criteria’ referred to in Williams and others v Compair Maxam Limited are criteria to be used for selecting those employees who are to be made redundant from within an existing group. For the purposes of these criteria, the question of alternative employment is a separate issue. There are some redundancy cases, of which this is one, where redundancy arises in consequence of a re-organisation and there are new, different, roles to be filled. The criteria set out in Williams do not apply to the process by which selection for such roles should take place. The employer simply needs to act fairly and reasonably. A tribunal is entitled to consider, as part of its deliberations, how far an interview process was objective; but it should keep carefully in mind that an employer’s assessment of which candidate will best perform in a new role is likely to involve a substantial element of judgment.

In this case the tribunal found the selection to be fair and sufficiently objective. There had been no error of law, nor had the decision been perverse.