In Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Monte-D'Cruz, the EAT considered whether the interview criteria for potential alternative roles in a redundancy process need to be objective.
Mr Monte-D'Cruz' position became redundant as a result of a restructuring in which Samsung merged three manager roles into one new role. In his interview for this new role, Mr Monte-D'Cruz was scored according to ten competencies: creativity, speed, challenge, strategic focus, simplicity, self-control / empowerment, customer focus, crisis awareness, continuous innovation and teamwork / leadership. He did not get the job, and applied for an alternative post which was scored using the same competencies. However, his overall score did not meet the required standard, and Samsung eventually recruited externally. The employment tribunal upheld Mr Monte-D'Cruz' claim for unfair dismissal, in part because the criteria applied in interviewing him were too subjective.
The EAT disagreed, stressing that considering candidates for suitable alternative employment is different to a redundancy selection exercise. Not all aspects of an employee's performance lend themselves to objective measurement, and there is no obligation to use objective criteria in an interview for alternative employment. The EAT also warned against assuming that terms that 'look like mere management-speak have no meaning to their regular users'.
This case highlights that employers can use their own discretion when deciding how to assess suitability for a particular role, as long as the process is carried out in good faith.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.