Redundancy Selection Pool and Scoring Criteria 2026/27: Your Rights

It is automatically unfair, and can amount to unlawful discrimination, to select someone for redundancy based on a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 -- age, disability, sex, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, or gender reassignment. It is also automatically unfair to select someone because they are a trade union member or representative, because they asserted a statutory right (such as requesting flexible working or complaining about pay), because they are pregnant or on maternity/paternity/adoption leave, or because they blew the whistle on wrongdoing.

LIFO -- selecting the most recently hired employees for redundancy first -- was historically common but is now used much less often on its own, because it can indirectly discriminate against younger employees (who are statistically more likely to have shorter service) and, depending on workforce demographics, potentially other protected groups too. LIFO can still be used lawfully as one factor within a wider, balanced scoring matrix, but relying on it as the sole criterion is legally risky and rarely recommended by employment lawyers today.

Yes, but carefully. General attendance and disciplinary record can be a legitimate scoring factor, but any absence related to a disability (which the employer must reasonably accommodate under the Equality Act), pregnancy-related illness, or statutory family leave (maternity, paternity, parental, adoption leave) must be excluded from the scoring, or the employer risks a discrimination claim on top of unfair dismissal. Employers should keep clear records distinguishing these protected absence types from general sickness absence.

Fair redundancy process generally requires: a genuine business reason for redundancies, a fairly defined selection pool, objective and consistently applied scoring criteria, individual consultation with at-risk employees (including sharing your own scores if requested and giving you a chance to challenge them), consideration of suitable alternative employment within the organisation, and a right of appeal against the decision. Skipping meaningful consultation, or not considering alternative roles, are common grounds for successful unfair dismissal claims even where the underlying redundancy itself was genuine.

Yes -- as part of a fair process, you are generally entitled to see your own scores against the criteria used, and reasonable employers will share these during consultation, even if not always volunteered automatically. If your employer refuses to disclose your scores or the criteria used, this can itself indicate an unfair process, and you can raise it formally through the consultation or a subsequent grievance or tribunal claim.

First, raise concerns during the consultation process itself, and use any internal appeal process your employer offers -- this is often the fastest route to a resolution and is looked upon favourably by tribunals if you later need to escalate. If the process was not put right, you can bring an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal (generally requiring at least two years' continuous service, though this requirement does not apply to automatically unfair reasons like discrimination or asserting a statutory right), or a discrimination claim (no minimum service required) if you believe a protected characteristic influenced your selection. Claims must generally be lodged within three months less one day of your dismissal.

Yes -- statutory (and any enhanced contractual) redundancy pay is due regardless of whether the selection process was fair, provided you meet the basic eligibility criteria (normally two years' continuous service). A successful unfair dismissal or discrimination claim about the selection process is a separate matter that can result in additional compensation on top of your redundancy pay, but does not affect your entitlement to the redundancy payment itself.