Redundancy claims are rarely lost on whether the business needed to reduce headcount. They are lost on how the reduction was carried out, and specifically on whether the employer can show that the decision-making sequence happened in the order it claims.
Selection criteria written after the selection
The most common defect we see: criteria drafted, or quietly adjusted, once managers already know who they want to keep. It is usually detectable from document metadata and from the criteria themselves, which tend to map suspiciously well onto one individual's profile. Criteria must be settled and signed off before scoring begins, and the sign-off should be dated.
Consultation as an announcement
Consultation means the outcome is genuinely open. Where the employer has already decided, and the meetings exist to communicate the decision, the process fails regardless of how many meetings there were. Practically: ask for alternatives, record the alternatives raised, and record why each was or was not adopted.
Managers running the process untrained
- Line managers making commitments about redeployment they cannot deliver.
- Off-script remarks in meetings that later read as predetermination.
- Notes taken inconsistently, or not at all, across parallel meetings.
- Different managers applying the same criterion differently.
What a defensible process looks like
Criteria agreed and dated in advance. Independent moderation of scoring before any outcome is communicated. A scripted framework for each meeting, with a note taken by a second person. A documented redeployment search with dated evidence of the roles considered. An appeal heard by someone who was not part of the original decision.
None of this slows a restructuring meaningfully. It adds days to a process measured in weeks, and it is the difference between a defensible file and an expensive one.
