Originally Posted by
Vokes55
I would've thought the person who gets made redundant in a way contrary to a signed part of their MOA (assuming, as I've been told above, that BA have a criteria that was renegotiated to be legal and compliant) would have a better case for unfair dismissal.
It would be hard to enforce or even argue, in court, for a clause that has been superseded by new legislation. An illegal clause in a contract cannot be used as a legal basis for a case of unfair dismissal or the reverse. The issue of LIFO has been tested a few times and as it, in many cases, now seems to encompass an element of age discrimination - it is impossible to have 30 years in a company if you are only 21 - it may not be a great argument to rest your redundancy scheme upon, irrespective of its appearance in an MOA written many years before.