amazon.co.uk.ltd v Hurdus

In a redundancy dismissal, an Employment Tribunal must review whether the employer’s selection procedure fell within the range of reasonable responses. It must not substitute its own preferred scoring model or investigate the process with excessive minuteness. A selection matrix is not automatically unfair because another method might appear preferable.

In considering alternative employment, the relevant question is whether the employer took reasonable steps to find suitable vacant work. A dismissal is not rendered unfair merely because the employee had no realistic prospect of obtaining a particular role, unless there was a suitable vacant post for which the employee was not properly considered.

Mr Hurdus was dismissed by Amazon.co.uk Ltd for redundancy after a selection exercise between two Senior Recruiters. The Reading Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, concluding that the selection comparison was unfair and that the employer had merely gone through the motions regarding an alternative Labour Manager post.

Amazon appealed against the liability finding and the related remedy conclusions. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had impermissibly substituted its own view of a fair selection process and whether the handling of alternative employment fell outside the range of reasonable responses.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s finding of unfair dismissal was reversed and a finding of fair dismissal was substituted. The remedy grounds therefore became moot.
2. Under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal’s function is to review the employer’s decision, not to devise the selection procedure it would have preferred. The Tribunal must ask whether the selection system adopted and applied by the employer fell within the range of reasonable responses.
3. The guidance in British Aerospace v Green [1995] IRLR 433 was applied. Tribunals should avoid an over-minute investigation of a redundancy selection exercise, while recognising that a marking system is not automatically fair and must be assessed for its inherent fairness, criteria and application.
4. The principle against substituting the Tribunal’s view, illustrated by London Ambulance Service v Small [2009] IRLR 563, applied equally to redundancy selection. The Tribunal had treated the difference between a promoted level 5 employee and a satisfactory level 6 employee as showing that the employer’s model was unreasonable. That was merely its own view of how the model might be improved.
5. As to alternative employment, the question was whether the employer took reasonable steps to find suitable alternative work. The fact that the Claimant had no realistic prospect of securing the Labour Manager post did not itself make the dismissal unfair. Unreasonableness would arise only if there was a vacant post for which he was suitable but he was not considered.
6. Following the approach in Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] IRLR 445, the EAT decided the case rather than remitting it. The selection matrix had been fairly adopted and applied, and all reasonable steps had been taken to find alternative employment.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed Amazon’s appeal against the Reading Employment Tribunal’s decision promulgated on 21 April 2010. The finding of unfair dismissal was reversed and a finding of fair dismissal substituted.
• Reading Employment Tribunal: Found the redundancy dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded compensation of £9,079.57.