Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

[ShedAnd]

I have been selected for dismissal via redundancy selected via a method of matrix scoring.
My matrix scoring is very wrong and biased, favouritism as gone on with this scoring method.
I am being pushed out of a company; I have worked there for 18 months and my boss who scored the matrix single handily as scored me wrong in order to get rid of me and another guy.
the said manager used to verbally abuse and humiliate me in front of other employees and it came to the point where I had, had enough and told him he was acting unreasonable and unprofessional in order to stop the abuse, it did stop but my relationship with the manager had diminished since the day I confronted him, I could handle this as I am strong inside and put aside babyish Behaviour.
He was the only manager scoring the matrix in my department and he knew which 2 employees he wanted to get rid of and did not score the matrix in a professional manner.
6 in our department are up for redundancy
1 of the employees, area supervisor a lifelong friend, school buddies and work mates since a young of schooling years of the manager
Another is the brother in-law of the supervisor.
Another who is now considered as a friend of the manager and supervisor of the area.
A recently new starter who I trained up to do the duties, he has not been selected.
That leave 2 people me and 1 more guy who has been selected for redundancy, he has been a subject of bullying from the manager.
My duties and skills exceed over a definite 4 of them but along the same lines as the other we both have good all round skills in all areas me knowing just a few more things than him.
Is it classed as reasonable for the manager of the area to do the matrix scoring regarding his relationship with other employees?
I have scored bad in sections of the matrix relating to my performance, skills and multitasking, all I can say is wrong.
I am the only guy in the area that carries out the testing and integrity of the product but when I challenged this I was told that testing is part of the assembly area (the area I am referring to)
I was made to believe that when I received a pay increase in Dec it was in exchange of me taking up the role of testing, I am made to believe that the job has to be redundant to make the employee redundant.
Since my first consulting meeting with 2 managers I have taken a back seat within my area and left it down to the remaining staff to perform the duties I was actively doing, to be met by questions off my supervisor, Andy can you show me how to set up this machine please on 2 different accessions, I obliged because I am a kind hearted person and do have a duty to forfull, I also so have carried on training the member of staff I was asked to train, he is a nice person and thought he would be 1 of 2 going.
I am going to appeal against their decision and make it very hard for them to justify how the matrix system was scored, like do they have any evidence to match against the matrix, we had appraisals last December and they do not match up (but I’m not telling them that)
I have all intensions to take these fuckers the court and prove unfair dismissal, they will find that out when they give me my notice.
I have a secondary consulting meeting on Monday with the 2 managers to put forward my proposals to try and save my job.
The only thing I am going to do is give them one last chance to change their mind and put this nonsense right as it is classed as unfair dismissal, and swiftly get out of the meeting as quickly as possible.
The manager carrying out the redundancies as already admitted that he has been googling redundancy procedures and been in talks with his law advisor, what an idiot the company won’t even pay for a new brush let alone a law advisor.
I asked him if he knew the minimum time required for the consulting period for less than 20 redundancies and he could not answer but trying to fish it out of me, what a knob head, like I’m going to tell him.
the matrix being used as been copied and pasted of the internet with a few minor alterations been made to try and make it authentic, the source has a few spelling mistakes that match up with the same spelling mistakes on the issued matrix, not a very legal document, I asked for a copy of my matrix and I looked over it, as said earlier it has only been done by one manager and it is not dated and nor is it signed, Would this make it null and void and could I use this in a court of law?
Anyway sorry for the long post and thanks for reading this far any advice and comments are very welcome, I will update my letter of appeal over the weekend and keep updating my progress.
Thanks once again.
Oh and I AM willing to take them all the way in the courts.

[Pixie]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

I don't have a clue about Employment Law but it does seem that you have been treated unfairly and the manager is selecting people for redundancy on a personal rather than a professional basis.

Did you make your complaints about the manager in writing or just to him personally?

[julian]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

On Monday you need to go in with the details you have to back up your claim. You need to be prepared to challenge each aspect of the matrix and if possible show proof, through work related successes, why they have the matrix and you assessment wrong. Be aware if you don't leave, then someone else may go in your place and they may also fight against the new selection.

HR manages employment legislation rather than products or projects. They are not there to protect the workers, but to protect the company from the workers. Like accountants finding tax evasion scams, HR works to pay less and ask more of the workforce. HR, and management not being made redundant, are bonused on how easy the redundancy is for the company in terms of cost and issues.

So kick up a fuss, you may keep your job but you manager will lose some of his bonus. You may find it difficult to continue working in the same company as a result of the redundancy process. However, getting a new job is often easier if you are already in work.

You need to ensure that if you do get made redundant that you have a good reference as part of the package, and paid time off to look for other work.

If it is true redundancy and not company reorganisation or closedown, everybody should be judged on their value to the company. If you make widgets and only widgets, then if they stop making widgets and have moved to wadgets, unless you can show you can make wadgets you are redundant - i.e. no more need for widget makers. If you can make wadgets but have never been asked to do it, then you could be redeployed. If they are just cutting down from 100 to 80 staff that all make widgets, then they can introduce other elements that are more esoteric such as team-bonding, flexibility (do work any time any where), buying boss coffee etc.

From my own experience the company can work the redundancy process anyway they want. They agreed the matrix with a group of people 'elected' from within the areas of redundancy. However, as the roles of each and every person, even within the same unit, was different it was still unfair although they had been agreed by the representatives.

Basically if you were in a fee-paying job, you were kept on no matter how rubbish you were. The matrix was weighted that if you had a task for the next 3 months you would be above the line. There were several cases of people who did 'firefighting' and were kept on alert but not on long-term assignments so that they could be drafted in when required. These were highly skilled and adaptable people thrown all over the country and the world to dig projects out of the mire. They were marked down on several levels as they had no continuous task, and consequently no sponsors, though still working on bits and bobs in between 'fires'. Many of those were selected for redundancy as there was no response to the selection. The company is now up the creek because they threw out those who worked for the company rather than for themselves.

Good luck.

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

I don't have a clue about Employment Law but it does seem that you have been treated unfairly and the manager is selecting people for redundancy on a personal rather than a professional basis.

Did you make your complaints about the manager in writing or just to him personally?

It was in person and nobody else knew about it.

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

I have have a good set of questions to ask them regarding the matrix and I have not made it easy for them, this will give me enough evidence in court for unfair dismissal.

[tastyjane]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

ShedAnd excellent advice from Julian, have they clearly outlined the pool of employees which are potentially redundant? Also criteria should be set to ensure they reflect the employers business priorities in order to retain the best employees. Criteria must not be discriminatory and must be capable of objective assessment or measurement, in my experience the management team would set a number of selection criteria and then at least 2 members of staff would independently score each employee in the selection pool against the criteria. The criteria would be weighted due to importance for the overall priority and care would be taken not to include any criteria that could indirectly discriminate - for example any time off for dependents would be deducted from absenteeism data.

If used fairly a strong matrix is by far the best way to determine individuals for redundancy, the problem comes if the company allows "personal opinions" to sway the marking.

If you have evidence from appraisals, salary increase letters listing additional skills etc then take them to your consultation meeting tomorrow - ask the panel to go through each criteria one by one and put forward your reasoned argument as to why you dispute the mark you have been given. Similarly check any data used re time keeping, attendance and absenteeism, a company will sometimes use previous warnings in the selection process - check that this situation is a fair reflection of your personnel file.

Julian however is also right - if you have a HR department that is worth it's salt then I would be horrified if they haven't very carefully checked the "paperwork" - tribunals don't like shoddy redundancy programmes!

Good luck, make sure that your meeting is recorded and that you are given a copy of the minutes.

If you want to PM me with any specific questions I would be very happy to try and help.

Jane x

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

This is a copy of my matrix whereas does not look very well set out and is clearly copied and pasted of the net. see link below.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/working-for-us...tion-criteria/

I have outlined the the spelling mistake as well.

'Overall performance is exceptional and conisistently exceeds required standard'



My scoring is very wrong in the top 2 sections as I have never had any complaints with my performance and my skills and compitance is very good.

In the disciplinary section it shows that there is four levels of the companies disciplinary procedure, but in my contract there is no mention about 'letter of concern'.

In the attendance section, I am down as a low scoring 4 and classed as poor attendance record, I was never made aware of this and they have scored me for a lateness when there was a bad accident near where i work one morning and was stuck in traffic and could not get to work on time, but on the other hand the other person getting pushed out in my area scored (1) in this section (Excellent attandance/timekeeping, no instances) and he was late on the very same day due to the accident, and in the meeting I was informed everyone has been penalised for that very day.

[tastyjane]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

On my phone at the moment as I am out and about but I will reply again later, you need to get the data around absence and time keeping if its not right you need to challenge it.

Jane x

[julian]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

In addition you should have a job description signed off by you and the management, or the description given when you joined. You need a JD or you cannot know what is expected, can you?

If timekeeping is important then the actual hours should be stated- Are you required to be at your post at 8am on the dot so that your colleagues and customers do not have to wait around for you?

If hours are notional eg come in have a cup of tea and a chat then does a few minutes matter if you do what is allocated to you.

Why is supervision required? Have they failed to train you?

How do they measure performance - as TJ says. What would be required to be exceptional? For this you should have objectives e.g. 25 widget and hour with maximum 1% defective.

[tastyjane]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

OK that's not the most comprehensive matrix I have ever seen Having said that they are obviously trying to follow a process, do you know if you were scored by one or more people?

With regards to time keeping and attendance - do you clock in and out? If you do then they should have copies of your timesheets - I would ask them to see them and check that they have calculated this properly.

OK on to the skills level - did you have regular performance reviews? Have you put through any training? Ask to see a copy of your training record. You mentioned that you had been given a pay increase to cover additional duties - do you still have the letter? If not ask your HR department for a copy of this.

You will have the opportunity to appeal even if they do move to dismissal so you need to gather as much documentation as you can.

Out of interest how do you know what your colleagues score was? Did he share that with you or were the other peoples in the pool given to you?

Obviously I am not aware of what type of business this is but from the look of your criteria sheet you work in assembly - is this a skilled process? Are there other areas of your company you could transfer to? Have they discussed any other vacancies with you?

I'm sorry you are going through this - I understand that it must be very frustrating and hurtful feeling that you are being unfairly judged but please don't get too hung up on the fact they have copied the matrix off the internet or about spelling mistakes etc - these are just small housekeeping issues, the main issue here is if they have dealt with the selection process objectively. If you go in all guns blazing about small issues you risk not being taken seriously on the bigger picture.

Jane x

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

do you know if you were scored by one or more people?

There is only one name on the matrix sheet, yes I was only scored by one person.

With regards to time keeping and attendance - do you clock in and out? If you do then they should have copies of your timesheets - I would ask them to see them and check that they have calculated this properly.

I do clock in and usually get there 10 mins before start of work for a brew and a chat with the lads.
I’m not disputing the time keeping section as to my score, I have had 3 times missing work due to illness and a bad back. And 2 lates, one was due to an accident in the area and unavoidable.

OK on to the skills level - did you have regular performance reviews? Have you put through any training? Ask to see a copy of your training record. You mentioned that you had been given a pay increase to cover additional duties - do you still have the letter? If not ask your HR department for a copy of this.

We have appraisals once a year and the last one was about 3 months ago, so I can ask for this.
My training was when I started and lasted about six months.
The letter regarding my pay increase was brief and never stated the additional role I was doing, but they are saying testing (the additional role) is part of the assembly area and is classed as one position, it is one area with several different roles in it and I was the only person doing the testing.

Out of interest how do you know what your colleagues score was? Did he share that with you or were the other peoples in the pool given to you?

I only know what one other colleague scored, this is the other guy going through the same as me, and we compared our sheets just out of curiosity.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they only scored on the employees they only want to push out the door.
There are four redundancies, 2 in my department and 2 another area of the company.

Obviously I am not aware of what type of business this is but from the look of your criteria sheet you work in assembly - is this a skilled process? Are there other areas of your company you could transfer to? Have they discussed any other vacancies with you?

There only two areas of the company on the shop floor and there is redundancies in both areas.
It is a small company employing about 30 staff including the office based staff, there is no redundancies within the office because an emplyee recently left preventing any redundancies there.

I'm sorry you are going through this - I understand that it must be very frustrating and hurtful feeling that you are being unfairly judged but please don't get too hung up on the fact they have copied the matrix off the internet or about spelling mistakes etc - these are just small housekeeping issues, the main issue here is if they have dealt with the selection process objectively. If you go in all guns blazing about small issues you risk not being taken seriously on the bigger picture.

My objective is to ask them if my scoring can be justified and is in line with my training record (if there is one) and my resent appraisals and to point out the multitasking I do within my area.
I will leave alone the admin mistakes they have made, I was only pointing this out if it could be used against them to demonstrate they have not taken this seriously and should of made their own matrix to suit the company and its needs..
Cheers ShedAnd

[tastyjane]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

Shedand you need to find out who is officially in your pool - if all the employees in your department do the same type of role then they should all be going through consultation and should have been scored (you do not have a right to see their scores however).

With my hand on my heart I have to say having sat on the other side of the fence and put together redundancy programmes as long as you can demonstrate that your scoring is consistent and fair, that the data you have used (ie timekeeping etc) is correct and that you follow the right time table re consultation, notice etc then it is often very easy to select employees who leave.

However, from what you say you feel that the decisions on who was to stay and who was to go seem to have been made before even the selection criteria was written - you need to question them around their scoring and your skill sets etc if you genuinely feel you have been selected unfairly.

If they are not going through consultation with all members of your team they have left themselves open to an unfair dismissal claim! I would say its key to you to ask just who exactly is in your selection pool and take it from there. If you went to tribunal with the fact that only half the people of the team were put into selection then I am sure you would win as long as you were all doing the same/ish job day to day.

Jane x

Jane x

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

Hi Jane, The pool consists of just the four people who are getting dismissed, none of the other employees has been in any consultation meetings and I do not know if they have even been scored.

I know I don’t have the right to see the scores of other employees however one work mate did share his score with me.

I do believe they have left themselves wide open for a claim of unfair dismissal as no one else has been in for a consulting meeting.

Even one employee spoke up during the very first collective meet feeling that his job was on the line and volunteered for redundancy but was told to sit tight and wait, Later to find out that he was not on the list and he will be staying, in my belief he should of been in the matrix pool because he does the same type of work in his area as everyone else.

And yes they have not consulted with any other employees in my area who the same types of work as me, other than me and the other guy what is getting the push.

Thank you for all your help so far Jane it has really been very useful and helped clear my head somewhat.

Cheers ShedAnd

[ShedAnd]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

Hi Jane, I have come up with some questions to ask them in my meeting tomorrow, do you think it looks ok.

1. Who exactly is in my selection pool?

2. What source or sources has been used to help influence the scoring?

3. As my training record and recent appraisals been used to help score me fairly?

4. Why was I given a 5% pay increase in January if I am underperforming?

5. Why as only one person assessed the matrix and not more for fair scoring results?

6. In the skills and competence section of the matrix, I believe (1) is more accurate for me as I am multi skilled and do take on a range of different roles showing competence in what I do and I do not need any supervision whilst doing my duties but I do take an active role of helping out my fellow workers including training a recently employed.

7. Work performance section of the matrix, I think needs to be reassessed, as my standards are very high, please could you clarify on this very part of the matrix and demonstrate the difference between the five subsections?

8. Attendance section of the matrix, if my attendance is classed as POOR, why wasn’t I ever made aware of this?
I may add more to it but connot come up with anything else as yet.

Once again Thanks.

[tastyjane]

Re: Redundancy chosen by matrix scoring

ShedAnd excellent - during your consultation put those points over and ask for written responses.

I have been doing a little bit of digging for case law around the selection of pool's as this is what seems unfair to me - take a read and see if you feel any of this applies to you.

Redundancy - When is a pool of one fair?- 07/03/2012

When is it safe to have a pool of one in a redundancy situation? This issue has been considered in two recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) cases.
In order for a redundancy dismissal to be fair, there has to be a genuine redundancy situation and the employer must follow a fair procedure in carrying out the dismissal. This includes: considering the "pool", or group, from which employees should be selected; considering the criteria to be applied to those in the pool; a fair selection exercise; consultation; and consideration of suitable alternative employment. It is often easier, where possible, for employers to take the view that there is only one person in a pool. This can often avoid upsetting other staff (by drawing them into a selection process), the need to decide on selection criteria and a scoring process.
Capita Hartshead Limited v. Byard involved the "one of one" redundancy selection of an actuary. The Tribunal (and then EAT) decided that the pool was unfair as it should have included other actuaries. Previous cases held that the question of how the pool for selection in a redundancy situation should be defined is primarily a matter for the employer to decide and that it is difficult for an employee to challenge the employer's pool where the employer has genuinely applied its mind to the problem. In the Byard case, the decision was unfair as the actuaries concerned did similar work, the individual's performance was not criticised but praised and, although the employer argued that it would lose business if the actuaries working for particular clients were changed, this risk was "slight".
Byard set out the points to bear in mind when considering a pool for selection:

• The employer must genuinely apply its mind to the problem of selecting the appropriate pool;
• The key to a fair redundancy dismissal is whether it lay within the range of conduct which a reasonable employer could have adopted;
• This reasonable response test also applies to the selection of the pool from which the redundancy is to be drawn;
• There is no legal requirement that a pool should be limited to employees doing the same or similar work. The question of how the pool should be defined is primarily a matter for the employer to determine. It is difficult for the employee to challenge it where the employer has genuinely applied its mind to the problem;
• A Tribunal will scrutinise carefully an employer's reasoning to decide if it has genuinely applied its mind to the problem of who should be in the pool; and
• If the employer has genuinely applied its mind to this issue, its decision will be difficult (but not impossible) to challenge.

The Byard case did not change the law, but emphasised the need to consider carefully whether to include any other employees in the pool. It suggested that employers may be open to greater scrutiny than before if they included only one person in a redundancy pool.
However, in Halpin v. Sandpiper Books Limited, the EAT emphasised that the decision made by an employer as to the pool to choose was not easy to overturn. In this case, Mr Halpin was included in a pool of one as he had a unique position dealing solely with sales and was the only employee based in China. His work there was no longer required. The EAT held that selection only operates, when fairness is concerned, where there is a number of similarly qualified possible targets for redundancy. In this case, there was only Mr Halpin. The decision as to the pool was one for management and their decision was one resonably open to the employer. Therefore, his dismissal was fair.

The Halpin decision is more pro-employer than Byard. However, prudent employers hoping to select an employee from a pool of one would be wise to follow the points made in Byard, consider the position carefully and keep a record of the decision-making process. It will also be important, during consultation, to explain the basis for the selection of the pool, give the employee the opportunity to challenge it and, if he/she does, review the grounds for the challenge and decide if you agree them.

You have covered the question within your questions anyway but if it was me in this situation I would put this selection pool as the top of my queries. Secondly then how can they mark you so low when you have recently received a pay increase with regards to multiskilling!

If you are happy they have the data right in your timekeeping and attendance then to be honest I wouldn't push it - if you have had 3 days off and another individual has only had 1 then it stands to reason your score will be worse. I have to say I only ever use the Bradford Factor (occurrence x occurrence x number of days off) as a fair measure to the impact of absence on a company.

1. Who exactly is in my selection pool?

2. What source or sources hacw been used to help influence the scoring?

3. Have my training record and recent appraisals been used to help score me fairly?

4. Why was I given a 5% pay increase in January if I am underperforming?

5. Why was only one person used to assess the matrix and not more for a more objective result?

6. In the skills and competence section of the matrix, I believe (1) is more accurate for me as I am multi skilled and do take on a range of different roles showing competence in whatever I do and I do not need any supervision whilst doing my duties but I do take an active role in helping out my fellow workers including training a new employee recently employed.

7. Work performance section of the matrix, I think needs to be reassessed, as my standards are very high, please could you clarify on this very part of the matrix and demonstrate the difference between the five subsections?

8. Attendance section of the matrix, if my attendance is classed as POOR, why wasn’t I ever made aware of this?

I have changed a little of your grammar on these questions - print them out and let them have a copy so that they can respond to you on each specific point. Please make sure that you are not alone in this consultation with your manager, there should be a minimum of 3 of you in attendance.

Good luck

Jane x