Redundancy selection criteria

New and updated

• Date:

  1 July 1988

  Type:

  Law reports

  Pregnancy is unfair redundancy selection criterion

  In Brown v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21.4.88) EOR20F, the House of Lords holds that selection of a woman for redundancy because she is pregnant and will require maternity leave is dismissal for a reason connected with pregnancy and automatically unfair.

• Date:

  1 July 1987

  Type:

  Law reports

  Redundancy selection on grounds of pregnancy not automatically unfair

  In Brown v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (20.3.87) EOR14C, the Court of Appeal rules that selection for redundancy on grounds of pregnancy is not dismissal for a reason connected with pregnancy and therefore not automatically unfair.

• Date:

  1 November 1986

  Type:

  Law reports

  Fair to dismiss for redundancy on grounds of pregnancy

  In Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Brown (21.7.86) EOR10B, the EAT rules that a woman who is selected for redundancy on ground of being pregnant is not dismissed on ground of pregnancy. They also hold that it was fair to select the respondent for redundancy and not offer alternative employment because she was pregnant.

• Date:

  1 May 1985

  Type:

  Law reports

  Part-timers first redundancy policy held not discriminatory

  Kidd v DRG (UK) Ltd (EAT, 8.2.84) EOR1A reaches the extraordinary conclusion that a redundancy procedure where part-time workers were dismissed first did not have a disproportionate impact upon married women compared with single women or upon women compared with men.