| The high-profile UK legal case Chagger v Abbey | | | | deprive Mr Chagger of his employment; Mr |
| National plc & Hopkins (2006) demonstrates how | | | | Hopkins had unfairly picked on Mr Chagger. |
| selecting an employee for compulsory redundancy | | | | The Employment Tribunal looked at the |
| based on inappropriate and/or wholly subjective | | | | compulsory redundancy selection criteria and |
| compulsory redundancy selection criteria can | | | | judged them to be un-measurable and highly |
| expose the employer to genuine allegations of | | | | subjective. They included 'empathy', 'range of |
| unfairness and discrimination from the dismissed | | | | influence', 'the ability to win hearts and minds', and |
| employee. Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander | | | | 'self insight'. The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr |
| banking group (the UK high-street bank due to be | | | | Hopkins highly for the manner in which he had |
| re-branded as Santander share price soon, and | | | | applied the compulsory redundancy selection |
| being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco | | | | criteria to Mr Chagger. For example, he had |
| Santander Central Hispano Group BSCH) dismissed | | | | scored Mr Chagger down for getting on with |
| Balbinder Chagger from employment in 2006, | | | | work and being self-reliant, an attribute the |
| stating compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr | | | | Employment Tribunal thought that other |
| Chagger was of Indian origin, worked as a Trading | | | | reasonable managers would consider to be a |
| Risk Controller at Abbey Grupo Santander price, | | | | valuable asset for an employee in Mr Chagger's |
| reported into Nigel Hopkins and earned around | | | | highly paid and highly responsible role, and score |
| £100,000. The compulsory redundancy selection | | | | him more highly on. Furthermore, Mr Hopkins |
| pool was Mr Chagger and the other Trading Risk | | | | criticised Mr Chagger for things he had never |
| Controller, a white lady. Mr Chagger, however, | | | | been criticised for before the compulsory |
| believed the actual reason behind the termination | | | | redundancy selection process; the criticisms Mr |
| of his employment was race discrimination. The | | | | Hopkins made were inconsistent with past |
| Employment Tribunal judging the matter found | | | | performance appraisals of Mr Chagger. From that, |
| race discrimination and, following Emilio Botin | | | | the Employment Tribunal decided that the |
| Abbey Santander banking group's refusal to | | | | criticisms were not legitimate or were not serious |
| reinstate Mr Chagger as the Tribunal had ordered, | | | | enough to result in a reduced redundancy score. |
| subsequently awarded the record-breaking | | | | As can be seen, employers failing to take proper |
| compensation of £2.8 million. | | | | care in the selection of employees to dismiss via |
| According to the Employment Rights Act 1996, | | | | compulsory redundancy can find themselves |
| the selection of an employee for dismissal via | | | | exposed to genuine allegations of unfairness and |
| compulsory redundancy must be fair, meaning | | | | or discrimination; wholly subjective and |
| that the compulsory redundancy selection criteria | | | | inappropriate compulsory redundancy selection |
| have to be objective and measurable, and have | | | | criteria contributed to the Employment Tribunal's |
| to be applied fairly to the correct compulsory | | | | ruling that Mr Hopkins had used the compulsory |
| redundancy selection pool, and to each employee | | | | redundancy exercise as a vehicle to deprive Mr |
| within the pool. | | | | Chagger of his employment, and that both Grupo |
| Tribunals will, therefore, start by looking at the | | | | Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially |
| redundancy selection pool from which the | | | | discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal. |
| dismissed employee was chosen, because | | | | The case did not stop there though; in 2008, the |
| processing an incorrect group of employees could | | | | matter was appealed and escalated to the |
| affect the fairness of the dismissal. Then, | | | | Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and in July |
| Tribunals will look at what the compulsory | | | | 2009, was appealed to the Court of Appeal (being |
| redundancy selection criteria that were applied in | | | | the 2nd highest court in the UK). The Court of |
| the selection of the employee to be dismissed | | | | Appeal's List of Hearings showed that the case |
| were, and also at how those criteria were applied | | | | was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of |
| in scoring the employee; the compulsory | | | | Appeal's judgement on the case was not available |
| redundancy selection criteria and their application | | | | at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set |
| needs to be objective; the application must not | | | | of chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey |
| reflect the scoring manager's or employer's | | | | Santander share and Mr Hopkins, had reported |
| personally biased desires or personally biased | | | | that the hearing was to be about compensation |
| opinions. The Employment Tribunal hearing the | | | | only (not race discrimination also). That would |
| Chagger case found that Mr Hopkins personally | | | | seem to suggest that the wrong of racial |
| desired Mr Chagger's employment to be | | | | discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Santander |
| terminated, had premeditated that Mr Chagger | | | | Abbey and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT |
| would be the one who would be scored lower and | | | | (it upheld the original Tribunal's ruling that both |
| selected to be dismissed, and had used the | | | | Abbey Santander price and Mr Hopkins had racially |
| compulsory redundancy process as a way to | | | | discriminated against Mr Chagger in his dismissal). |