Topics

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.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy selection criteria.

Redundancy selection crieria: key resources

Redundancy pay calculator

  • Does the impact of the coronavirus mean your organisation is planning redundancies? Use the redundancy pay calculator to work out your statutory redundancy payment liabilities.