and its not just 1st in last out,it goes on attendance/productivity/time keeping etc etc
What makes you think attendance/productivity/time keeping have any effect on redundancy selection?
The Bradford Scale is used more than anything for redundancy selection, this includes attendance
The Bradford 'Factor' isn't used 'more than anything' for redundancy selection. The Bradford Factor is used to track and highlight absenteeism. It is a 'Tool' like any other tool. It was not designed to be used as a redundancy selection tool. If an employer is using the Bradford Factor to select for redundancy then like any tool in the wrong hands, it can be dangerous!
As some of you know, I was a HR Trainer in a previous life. I asked gregers the question because I'm trying to give some advice here guys. Please don't think I'm preaching.
If you select employees for redundancy and you base your selection criteria on...
attendance/productivity/time keeping etc etc
then you better be VERY comfortable with having to defend that decision. Don't get me wrong, it 'can be' lawful to select for redundancy based on those factors BUT you need to be careful.
Consider this example: Bill and Andy are both employed to do exactly the same job and they both carry out their duties to the same standard. Bill has had persistent short periods of absence (1 or 2 days), over the last 6 months. Andy has not had any absence over the 6 months.
The Bradford Factor would give Bill a high score and Andy would have a score of 0 (a low score being preferable).
Now based on that score we select Bill for redundancy. Is that fair?
Well, if those periods of absence were for reasons such as: 'I had flu', 'I've got a heavy cold', 'I'm just not feeling very well', etc etc then there is 'possibly' reasonable justification for selection. The counter argument in this instance would be that if you are using the Bradford Factor then you should have addressed the absence problem earlier and taken the employee through an Absence Management process. But there is an argument for your selection based on that score. Ultimately you have to select someone and it may well be that you choose to keep Andy over Bill due to Bill's absence. The law (especially with respect to a small employer), would 'probably' support that decision (it's a minefield though!). However, if Bill's reasons for those periods of absence were due to factors such as: he has a disabled child, a dependant with serious health issues, his own long term health issues, a disability of some sort etc etc, then even though the Bradford Factor scored him highly, an Employment Tribunal would frown upon you selecting him based on his Bradford Factor score. He 'may be' protected under Disability Discrimination in this case!
In a small company it would be fairly easy to track employees that you know have 'serious health issues' etc, and you probably wouldn't get to the stage of Bill being selected for redundancy (based on his 'score'), because you'd have identified that the Bradford Factor had given Bill a high score and ignored it or indeed removed Bill's scoring. If however, we take the example above and multiply it by hundreds or even thousands of employees as is the case in the Civil Service, then using the Bradford Factor to select for redundancy is inevitably going to wind you up in an Employment Tribunal. Yes there will be those that are just 'swinging the lead' and the Bradford Factor (used correctly), will highlight those individuals. The Prison Service had very high absence. It introduced Bradford Factor, to highlight staff with ‘disruptive’ absence. High scoring generated an 'absence warning'. However the Prison Service ensured that employees with serious conditions and disabilities did not receive a warning. In 5 years they reduced absence by 25%, which apparently made a 38 Million pound saving! They also introduced health and support services for long-term absence though so the Bradford Factor cannot take all the credit for the absence reduction.
In summary, yes you can select for redundancy based on absence BUT be careful, as under Disability Discrimination the law protects employees from unfair selection for redundancy.
At the risk of repeating myself, in relation to Ms Abbott's comments, the law in terms of 'Sex and/or Race Discrimination' in the area of 'selection for redundancy' covers both sexes (including those who have undergone gender reassignment), and
ALL races. If someone is selected for redundancy based upon their sex/colour/race then that is AUTOMATIC discrimination in the eyes of the law. To quote from the Government's own website
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_10029832
Your employer cannot select people for redundancy based on the following grounds:
* gender
* marital status
* sexual orientation
* race
* disability
* religion or belief
* age
* trade union membership
* health and safety activities
* working pattern (eg part-time or fixed-term employees)
If your employer does select you for redundancy based on one of these grounds, then your redundancy becomes an automatic unfair dismissal.
Ms Abbott said:
"You could make local authorities, Government, quangos mindful by making them monitor the gender and ethnic distribution of people losing their jobs.
What 'mindful' means I'm not sure but if she is suggesting that local authorities, Government, quangos etc should select for redundancy based on sex, colour and/or ethnicity then that WOULD BE automatic Race/Sex Discrimination.
