Has anyone successfully challenged a scoring matrix?

[AnnaQuayInTheUk]

I and several of my colleagues have just been placed at risk of redundancy due to employer needing to make savings

The "restructuring" document says that staff will be scored on 3 factors, one of which is sickness absence over the past 2 years.

If you've not had any absence then you score maximum points. There's a sliding scale of absences with the final one being "15 or more consecutive days of absence OR 15 or more occasions of sickness" which scores 0 points.

So someone who has an exemplary sickness record but has 4 weeks off for a planned operation will score lower than someone who's had 8 or 9 separate days off on an ad hoc basis.

That doesn't seem fair to me. Has anyone had anything similar and challenged it?

It doesnt seem fair. How long have you been there?

Could you raise your concerns about this within the context of your length of service, and for the reasons you've described here? (During the consultation)

Do you think you've been targeted?

Of course, if the operation was related to a protected characteristic, that could also be relevant.

Do you have a union who could assist?

#IANAL

Yes you can dispute. I would suggest asking them to replace this with a recognised absence measure like the Bradford Factor.

It actually works in my favour as I've not had any sickness absence in the last two years

But I manage a team who are also at risk of redundancy. One team member has taken a lot of odd days here and there of sickness, another hasn't but has had a period of planned sick leave due to an operation.

It just doesn't seem fair

Anyone else?

The operation will be covered by a fit note so may look more legit than the 7 or 9 random self certified sick days.

I know what you are saying but someone with a chronic illness might have multiple short absences vs someone with a planned op having one longer period of sickess. In my mind neither is more valid that another.