Managing Human Resources Coursework

An HRM Sample coursework on Redundancy and the Disability Discrimination Disability, Redundancy and the Disability Discrimination

This case is set within an organisation that is rationalising the size of the workforce with
compulsory redundancies. Management has chosen selection criteria using indicators
such as attendance and performance, but as there is no formal appraisal system they rely
on records and anecdotal evidence about performance.

The situation
Mr Frank is identified under these criteria. In spite of records of excellent service
between 1995 and 1998, during the relevant review period (the past two years) his
attendance and performance have shown a marked decline. At the time of his selection
for redundancy, Mr Frank had been on sick leave for two months under a diagnosis of
debility (lethargy and tiredness). There is evidence that his condition fluctuates, but that
during his worst bouts he is unable to leave the house.

On his file there was a note from the occupational health unit reaffirming this diagnosis
following Mr Frank’s first visit some six weeks ago. This diagnosis also accords with
assessments made regularly over the past 24 months. A further note from occupation

indicated that Mr Frank’s condition was undergoing further investigation through his GP,
although to date they were unsuccessful in coming up with anything any more specific
than a ‘debility’ label.

As stated, Mr Frank was away from the workplace during the redundancy selection
process. The first he heard of it was when he received a letter saying that he was under
notice for redundancy. The letter also stated that due to his comparatively short length of
service he was not eligible to join the redeployment register. As part of the redundancy
selection process, individuals were allowed to appeal.

As the personnel manager, you have received a letter for Mr Frank’s solicitor suggesting
that Mr Frank’s condition falls within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 (DDA) and therefore alleging that his selection for redundancy constitutes
discrimination under the terms of the DDA. The solicitor has indicated that she expects a
prompt reply and that, if a satisfactory response is not received within seven days, she
will recommend that the matter be presented to an employment tribunal.

The chief executive has asked you, in consultation with a specialist, to recommend a
course of action, either justifying the organisation’s position or setting out an
alternative course of action.



The organisation is rationalising the size of its workforce with required and
compulsory redundancies on the basis of attendance and selection criteria. The employee
named as Mr. Frank is identified under this criteria. The facts showed that Mr Frank in
the beginning of his service period (1995 to 1998), he has shown a tremendous
performance and attendance. But from the last 2 years not only the attendance but also
the performance of Mr. Frank declined. Therefore on the basis of redundancy criteria Mr
Frank has been notified of his selection for redundancy. He has been also notifies that
due to short length of service he is not eligible to join the redeployment register.


The organization has received a letter from Mr Frank’s solicitor that says that Mr Frank’s case should be considered on different basis because of his health and if it is not
considered then the case falls within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
(DDA) and therefore alleging that his selection for redundancy constitutes discrimination
under the terms of the DDA.

Case Study and Analysis:

Let me clear the following by following points:
Redundancy policy of the organization: Organization is aware and fell regretted for
this redundancy but it has been realized that the policy is quite compulsory for the
organization and becomes the requirement of the business. The policy is carefully
examined by the top management and HR panel of the organization and is applied
very fairly to all the employees of the organization. Mr. Frank case is no exception.
The performance indicator against Mr. Frank showed that he has been unable to
show good performance in his job, the organization released that he been off sick,
but there is not much and rigid records to the organization that justifies that Mr.
Frank is falling under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) . If we look at
what is meant by the disability, The Act defines a “disabled person” as a person
with: “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term
adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”[1]. Records
show that Mr Frank’s health condition always fluctuates. The past records of Mr.
Frank showed that he has been given treatment for his temporary health problems
and there is no serious health problem associated with Mr. Frank. It has been come
through the overall diagnosis that he has got debility which is a symptom of
tiredness and lethargy and it does not show any serious disability.
So it does not completely put Mr. Frank’s case under DDA.

1.  Disability Discrimination Act:

Even if we consider Mr. Frank’s case under DDA.
According  the  DDA  section  19  the  employer  discriminates  against  the  disabled
employee  if  the  employer  treates  his  disabled  employee  less  favourably  than  other
employees and he can not  justify  that  traetment. Also he cannot  jsutify  the disabled
employee failure to comply with that duty.[1] The Act ensures  in  terms of employments  that a disability of  the person will not stop a
person  from  employment  or  contuing  employment  unless  the  disability  will  really
obstruct the person from doing a particular job and the employer couldn’t overcome this.
As the act is for the disabled persons and it makes sure that a disabled person is  treated
Although MR. Frank  is  fairly  treated, he has been always given  the  sick payment  from
the last 2 years and relevant support, but now due to redundancy his performance is also
considered  with  attendance.  So  the  organization  can  not  see  that  Mr.  Frank  is
discriminated on the basis of DDA act.

The  employment meets  the  requirements  of  the  employments  legislation. Therefore  he
has been given a fair and equitable treatment.

Disability Discrimination Act:

According  to  the  discrimination  act,  the  company  is  believed  to  discriminate  against  a disabled person in the following cases:
•  If for any reason which connects to the person’s disability, and that the company
doesn’t treat him properly.
•  If a person is not able to show the reason for the treatment in process.
•  The  treatment  is  justified  only  if  in  the  eyes  of  the  company  the  conditions
mentioned below are justified and are satisfied.
1.  In whatever  circumstances,  the  treatment  is  required  to  ensure  the  health  of
the employee.
2.  Whatever  circumstances,  the  disabled  person  is  not  able  to  come  into  an
agreement, or can give consent, in this case the treatment is justifiable.
3.  If in a case falling under 19(1)(a) of DDA, the treatment is required so that the
company cannot do it for other members of public.
4.  If  in a case falling under section 19(1)(d),  if there are differences in terms of
the  services  provided  by  the  company which  is  greater  than  the  cost which
was previously expected.

Duty of the company to their employees:

•  If  in a case  that  the a company has a policy  that prohibits or makes difficult an
employee  or  a member  of  a  public  to  get  access  to  the  services  the  company
provides,  then  it’s  the  responsibility  of  the  employee  to  take  necessary  action
against the company to get those services.
•   In case there is a physical feature such as the design of the premises that hinders
employee from getting benefits of  the services,  then  it’s  the responsibility of  the
company to take steps such as to remove that feature, or modify it so that it has no
longer has that effect, provide methods so that to avoid that feature.
•  If  an  aid  of  the  service  such  as  hearing  aid  is  required  or  language  interpreters
then the company makes sure these services are provided.
Now,  by  considering  the  above  DDA,  and  considering  the  current  scenario  with Mr
Frank,  the  company  has  not  made  any  breech  with  its  commitments  to  provide  its
services  to disabled persons.  It has done all  it can do  to make  sure  that disable persons like Mr. Frank get what is required. For e.g. Mr. Frank and his GP has not come with any satisfactory outcome that what is it exactly that ails Mr. Frank. And he has not been able to show company what ails him other that a debility. On the other hand the company has made it sure that his health gets top priority. Mr. Frank has not been able to come into an justifiable agreement with the company but still company took care of his needs. Even in the prolonged periods of his illness, which cost company desirably because on the other hand,  if a company  employs another person  instead of Mr. Frank,  it can get profit, but company  did  not  and  still  has  not  fired  him  straightaway,  and  it waited  for  him  to  get healthy and get back to work, not caring about the losses it has to face in that regard. And if  looking  at  the  duties  the  company,  it  has made  sure  that  the  employee  gets  the  sick claims that he has made and to get easy access to the services it provides to its workforce.
And the company has done what it could to be in contact with its employee, and to be in
touch with him to discuss the latest developments and to be sure he gets what he deserves in order to get rid of his ailment.


From  the discussion, we can hereby say that the claim made by  the Mr. Frank and their
solicitor  that  the procedure  followed by  the  company  to  include him  in  the  redundancy list is not fair. The company observes that even after paying him his due money and his statutory pay and  sick pay,  it has performed  its duty. There  is no way denying  that  the company helped him  in anyway possible  to make sure he stays fit and gets  the required treatment he deserves and no one clause of DDA has been breeched by the company. But even  after  this  the  company  is  willing  to  give  him more  compensation  regarding  his redundancy  from  the  company.  It’s  because  the  company  takes  its  employees  in  high regard. If even this solution cannot be reached, the company may also consider him to be redeployed  in  the  work  force  given  a  specified  period  of  time  in  which  Mr.  Frank recovers from his health, but that is to say requires long debate with the management. But it can be done given Mr. Frank’s relationship with this esteemed company.