Subjective Selection Criteria

Print this page Email a link to this page
twitterlinkedintwitterlinkedin

In the 2012 case of Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Monte-D’Cruz, the EAT considered whether the interview selection criteria applied when recruiting to potential alternative roles in a redundancy process, need to be objective.

Mr Monte-D’Cruz held one of three manager roles which merged into one and thus his manager role was to become redundant.  In considering who to appoint to the new merged role Samsung ran an interview process.  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. Mr Monte-D’Cruz was unsuccessful in obtaining this and another job which he applied for.  The employment tribunal upheld Mr Monte-D’Cruz’s claim for unfair dismissal, in part because the criteria applied in interviewing him were too subjective.  However, the EAT disagreed.  The EAT stressed that considering candidates for suitable alternative employment is different to a redundancy selection exercise and as such there is no obligation to use objective criteria in an interview for alternative employment.

This case highlights that employers can use their own discretion in an interview/selection process when deciding how to assess suitability for a vacant role provided the procedures are carried out in good faith.

For more information, help or advice please contact Tim Davies on 0191 211 7927 or email [email protected].