Use of Bradford Factor in Redundancy Selection Process

[Newcastle_George]

We recently carried out a downsizing operation.

In order to select candidates for mandatory redundancy we used a number of criteria (performance, length of service, qualifications, absence etc...)

The sole scoring mechanism we used for gauging absenteeism was the Bradford Factor.

We have one case where two employees were up for consideration for one ongoing role with even overall scores. The deciding factor was their Bradford Score. One employee had a long term certified absence which gave them a high Bradford Factor score even though they had virtually no other absences.

Now they are bringing us to court based on the accusation that long term certified absences should not be taken into account when calculating the Bradford Factor.

Does anyone out there know of any legal precedent in this kind of case? Our Solicitors have not been able to find any examples thusfar.

 

[Atilla]

A long term certified absence giving them a high BF score?

How long was that person off?

The more normal use of BF was/is to highlight repetitive and/or short time absence. Not the longer term ones.
Relying soley on BF for absence does not give a true picture.

 

[Newcastle_George]

4 months in one block with no other absences.

 

[Atilla]

4 months in one block with no other absences.

My own view on this is you may be seen as vindictive, even though the process you used was designed to be fair and equal for all.

What your results/actions say is - God help you if you are sick or have other major problems.

The process used has produced a result that may, during the 'selection' process have seemed fair but on reflection may not be.

 

[Newcastle_George]

Yes. We didn't foresee this being a deciding factor in any cases as we thought the other criteria wouldn't even out.

How do you think a court would view it?

 

[Atilla]

Yes. We didn't foresee this being a deciding factor in any cases as we thought the other criteria wouldn't even out.

How do you think a court would view it?

Can only answer that from a personal viewpoint. Reckon it could go either way but it does seem he's been penalised for being ill.

See what some of the employment/HR members may come up with.

 

[Wicksy]

In each redundancy situation I've been involved in (both as a trade union official and managerial position) we have never been able to use the number of sick days as a factor - it was always based on a "sickness period" - so if you were off 1 day = 1 period, and if you were off 30 consecutive days that would also only count as 1 period.

If you were absent on the Tuesday, came back to work and then off on the Friday of the same week that would equal 2 sickness periods

 

[yorkshirejames]

Now they are bringing us to court based on the accusation that long term certified absences should not be taken into account when calculating the Bradford Factor.

Does anyone out there know of any legal precedent in this kind of case? Our Solicitors have not been able to find any examples thusfar.

Long term absences are likely to be linked to a disability (recall the textbook definition of a disability here).

Best advice I have is to make sure your fountain pen is full of ink.

 

[yorkshirejames]

In each redundancy situation I've been involved in (both as a trade union official and managerial position) we have never been able to use the number of sick days as a factor - it was always based on a "sickness period" - so if you were off 1 day = 1 period, and if you were off 30 consecutive days that would also only count as 1 period.

If you were absent on the Tuesday, came back to work and then off on the Friday of the same week that would equal 2 sickness periods

This is exactly how the bradford factor should work.

 

[sjbeale]

I would agree with everything that has been said here with regards to the Bradford Factor and long term illness. You can use absence in a redundancy matrix but you have to be careful in case it is DDA related; it appears you did not investigate it with occ health despite the length?

It is difficult to say what the final outcome may be, but I think you could lose this one.

 

[Newcastle_George]

Yes. The person visited the occ therapist twice. The first time was to justify the absence and the second time was to confirm they were now fit to return to work after 4 months.

 

[yorkshirejames]

Yes. The person visited the occ therapist twice. The first time was to justify the absence and the second time was to confirm they were now fit to return to work after 4 months.

Suggest you get on to the occ again, and ask for their professional opinion over whether the persons' illness could be considered a disability. If it is, then always better to settle out of tribunal and get a confidentiality clause agreed to.