June 25, 2025
It has been reported that the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in a widely reported redundancy selection case.
Background
ADP RPO UK Limited (ADP) is a recruitment outsourcing business. Mr de Banks Haycocks was employed by ADP from October 2017 and recruited staff for Goldman Sachs, a client of ADP.
As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, ADP decided to reduce headcount in the Goldman Sachs team.
At the beginning of June 2020, ADP scored employees in the relevant pool (being the Goldman Sachs team) using a redundancy selection criteria matrix provided by ADP’s parent company in the United States.
According to the scoring process Mr de Bank Haycocks was given the lowest score of the employees in the pool.
ADP notified Mr Haycocks on 30 June 2020 that he was at risk of redundancy and that a consultation period of 14 days would take place. During the first redundancy consultation meeting, ADP gave Mr de Bank Haycocks the opportunity to suggest any alternative options and ask any questions. A further meeting was held between the employer and Mr Haycocks on 8 July 2020.
Following the consultation, on 14 July 2020, ADP handed a dismissal letter to Mr de Bank Haycocks informing him that he was being made redundant.
In terms of process, the score from the selection process was given to Mr de Bank Haycocks after his dismissal
Mr de Banks Haycocks raised an internal appeal arguing that he had not been made aware of the scoring before dismissal and that his score was too low. However, his appeal was dismissed.
This is the process followed by many employers, scoring employees prior to consultation.
Employment Tribunal (ET)
Mr de Banks Haycocks brought a claim of unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal claiming that ADP failed to use a fair and proper procedure and that he was scored too low. Specifically, he stated that the score was ‘contrived and manipulated to achieve the end desired’, namely his dismissal by reason of redundancy.
The Employment Tribunal determined that the redundancy process had been fair and that ADP had carried out a conscientious investigation into the concerns Mr de Banks Haycocks had raised about scoring during the appeal.
Additionally, the Employment Tribunal held that Mr Haycocks failed to prove that he was marked unfairly during the scoring process and that he did not provide any evidence suggesting that he would have scored higher than the other employees. Mr Haycocks appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
The EAT allowed the appeal and held that the dismissal was unfair because there had been a lack of “meaningful consultation” at a “formative” stage in the process. The EAT stated that workforce-level consultation was a requirement of good industrial relations practice in all redundancy situations, alongside individual consultation. EAT concluded that Mr Haycocks was unfairly dismissed. ADP appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal (CA)
The Court of Appeal (CA)
The CA restored the ET’s decision that ADP that a proper process was followed by ADP. The CA disagreed with the EAT’s decision and held that there is no requirement for general workforce consultation in small-scale redundancies.
Importance for Employers
The Court of Appeal confirmed that employers don’t have to consult the wider workforce when making individual redundancies. The focus remains on ensuring the fairness of the consultation process for the affected individual, allowing them a chance to influence the decision.
For employers, the fact that the criteria for selection, and the claimant’s own scores, were not provided to him before his dismissal (although provided on appeal) did not make the redundancy process unfair.
Gilson Gray is happy to answer your questions regarding any Employment law issues. If you’d like more information, please contact a member of our Employment Law team here.
| Tabinda Gulfraz Trainee Solicitor , Employment | ||||
|
The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only. They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice. Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.
