an employer may discriminate between workers on the basis of length of service. This section has been successfully used to defend length-of-service as a means of selection for redundancy (Rolls-Royce vs Unite). .
Not quite correct. As I understand in this case, length of service was used in a redundancy selection matrix
in conjunction with other selection criteria - not solely LIFO.
In fact it was the union (Unite I think) who insisted that Rolls Royce implemented that criterion as it was the employer who deviated from a collective agreement that included length of service as
one of the selection criteria in their redundancy policy.
Length of service was deemed a
proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in this case
as it was used with other selection criteria.
By implementing LIFO as the
only factor in deciding redundancies, this would most likely be judged as indirect age discrimination and would be a risky and potentially expensive strategy to adopt in my opinion.
That said, managers will normally always seek to minimise the cost of redundancy which might be why they seem so keen to tell all-and-sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore..
Why would managers seem keen to tell all and sundry that LIFO can't be used anymore? Surely, this method of selection if used as the
only selection criteria (if legal)
would be the cheapest option to reduce staff as anyone with less than two years service would not be entitled to statutory redundancy payments. Severence pay or lieu of notice would also be negligable.
The biggest concern with redundancies is many employers adopt a redundancy selection matrix that can be 'tailored to fit' to ensure that 'certain personnel' or groups will be targeted.
Whatever selection method is used, myself and Mrs 777 have recently gone through redundancies and I can sympathise with people in a similar situation.