"Every Local Authority or development body who undertakes construction or maintenance work (a) of any of the descriptions specified in subsection (2) Section 10 above; or (b) of any descriptions specified by Regulations under subsection (4) of that Section, whether under works contracts or by way of functional works or both, shall secure that, in respect of each financial year, where revenue from work of that description shows such positive rate of return on the capital employed for the purpose of carrying out the work as the Secretary of State may direct."
"In exercise of the powers confirmed by him by S.17(5) of the Act he directs that, with effect from6th March 1986 your Authority shall cease to have power to undertake (whether under works contracts or by way of functional work) works of new construction as described in S.10(2)(b) and (c) of the Act provided that the Authority may complete any works on new construction which are comprised in works contracts which were entered into before that date, or which are comprised in functional work within the meaning of S.8(1) of the Act."
"175 Mr Jeans maintained that there is no obligation on an employer to find alternative employment for a redundant employee. The borough in general had very few vacancies for any positions at the relevant time, let alone positions which might be suitable for PWS craft employees. Nevertheless, from28 February 1989 there was a systematic scrutiny of available jobs to ensure that any potentially suitable vacancy was targeted at PWS employees. ... A Job Shop was set up which was run by Mrs Madeleine Kingston. It was widely advertised ... and the fact that this exercise yielded only one successful placement confirmed the shortage of vacancies."
"176 The representatives on behalf of the Applicants maintained that effort to find alternative employment by the Respondents was nil."
"179 The Tribunal found as a fact on the evidence before it that the respondents did make efforts to find the employees alternative employment. It was a sad fact that there were no suitable jobs available. Some employees applied for jobs within the Council after they were made redundant and for whatever reason were unsuccessful. However, this does not make the decision to make these employees redundant unfair."
"181 The employees were interviewed by Mr Andrews and Mr Berwick. The Tribunal accepted their evidence that they were directed to the Job Shop to seek employment and that the Job Shop was in very close proximity. The Tribunal found as a fact on the evidence before it that the Respondent made every effort to find the employees suitable alternative employment. The fact that they were unsuccessful was not the Respondent's fault. The Tribunal accepted that there were no jobs available within the borough at the time of the dismissals. There may have been jobs available at a later stage but the Tribunal is only concerned with what happened at the actual time of the dismissal. In addition, the Tribunal accepted Ms Featherstone's evidence that she canvassed other local authorities and was unsuccessful in finding her women alternative employment. The Tribunal found as a fact on the evidence that the Council as a whole looked for alternative employment both inside and outside the Borough. The Tribunal finds as a fact that the Respondents could not have made any further effort to find the employees alternative employment."
"172 With regard to the women there was no doubt that Ms Eve Featherstone was informing women at every stage of the proceedings as far as she was aware. Indeed she circulated Criteria One which appears to have been a private document. Mass meetings were held where individuals could attend and it was up to the individuals to attend these meetings. Ms Featherstone created women's forums to inform the women of what was happening. Some chose to attend and some chose not to attend but it is clear that the Council had, through Ms Featherstone, set up a procedure for informing the women as to what was happening.
"208 In consideration of the case law, and in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal does not find as a fact that a requirement or condition was placed upon the women with which, as women, they could not comply. The Council never specifically exempted any particular trade. Mr Wright determined the numbers to be retained in each particular trade according to the needs of the workforce. It so happened that the Council's policy of positively recruiting women and in recruiting women to the PWS, accidentally meant that women were not represented in certain trades. The Tribunal does not accept that certain trades were designated as exempt trades. It was an accidental happening that certain trades contained no women and it was an accidental happening that employees employed in certain trades were not made redundant because the needs of that particular trade were essential to carrying on an effective PWS for the future. It so happened that the numbers in that trade were satisfied after the voluntary redundancies had been made."
"147 The Tribunal found as a fact on the evidence before it that the trade groups existed before the redundancies occurred. The Respondents were entitled to say that they did not need a particular employee in that particular group. The applicants were grouped according to their contracts of employment. Ms Theobald, in her Originating Application, stated that she was an apprentice carpenter. After her redundancy she stated that she should have been classified as a joiner. Documentation indicated that she was indentured as a carpenter/joiner. However she always described herself as a carpenter. The Tribunal finds that it was reasonable for the Respondents not to have re-classified these employees into different groupings, employ them elsewhere and so have 'bumped' other employees. They were classified according to their contracts of employment. This was reasonable."
"148 It was maintained on behalf of the female applicants that improvers should not have been included in the pool for consideration for redundancy. It was maintained that improvers were essentially in the same position as apprentices. The Tribunal noted that apprentices are indentured employees. Good industrial relations practice has always maintained that the employment of apprentices should be protected. Improvers were not in this indentured category. The Tribunal did not consider it unreasonable for the Respondent, in these circumstances, to have excluded apprentices from a selection for redundancy.
"209 As has been said, it was reasonable to exclude apprentices from redundancy and CITB trainees were exempted from redundancy at the suggestion of Ms Featherstone to Mr Wright. These particular trainees were women. It was also reasonable to exclude disabled people from being made redundant. Disabled people are in a special category."
"194 The Tribunal initially considered whether the female applicants had been directly discriminated against. Mr McMullen submitted that Criteria Three directly and indirectly discriminated against women and that the discrimination was not justified. However, as Criteria Three was applied directly to men and women objectively, the Tribunal finds as a fact that the women were not directly discriminated against by being dismissed by reason of redundancy.
"217 The Tribunal then considered the absence criterion and the proposition that a considerably smaller proportion of women could achieve maximum points for absence over and above men because the women had dependent children, took time off for period pains, and had statutory time off for ante-natal visits. It was maintained that all applicants except Ms Theobald demonstrated loss of points on one or both of the absence criteria. The Tribunal accepted that more women might take time off than men for looking after their children because traditionally and historically it is the woman's role to look after children. However, the Tribunal noted that the Authority had generous sick dependency leave provisions: if the women did not choose to follow these provisions, it was not the fault of the Authority. As has been said, the Tribunal did not accept that the women necessarily had more sickness time off than the men for their particular problems."
"It is most undesirable in present circumstances where redundancies are, unhappily, an everyday event that there should be a doubt as to the question whether or not the formula "last in, first out" is lawful. Therefore, although we cannot ourselves decide the point, it is right that we should indicate our view so as to give as much reassurance as possible. In our view, bearing in mind that Parliament has encouraged the making of redundancy agreements between employers and unions and that "last in, first out" has for very many years been far the most commonly agreed criterion for selection, it would be right for an industrial tribunal to hold that the adoption of "last in, first out" was a necessary means (viewed in a reasonable and common sense way) of achieving a necessary objective, ie an agreed criterion for selection. Accordingly such need outweighs the limited discriminatory effect of adopting the criterion "last in, first out," if any. In our view, to select on the basis "last in, first out" is quite different from selecting on the basis "part-time workers first." Although "last in, first out" may have a limited discriminatory effect, taking part-time workers first is grossly discriminatory. In the present case, 100 per cent. of part-time workers were women; nationally over 80 per cent; of part-time workers are women. Therefore, in balancing the need for an agreed criterion for selection for redundancy against the discriminatory effect of the criterion adopted, the scales are quite differently loaded in the two cases."
"...but it does not in the least follow ... that when coming to consider under subsection (6) whether the employers had acted reasonably or unreasonably in the circumstances, it is not open to the tribunal to take into account as one of the matters affecting that question that fact that if the employers had to make a painful choice between selecting one employee or another for dismissal, it is, other things being equal, generally regarded as fair to retain the services of that employee who has been longest in service."
"...if an employer adopts criteria other than last in, first out for redundancy selection ... he must be able to show both that the criteria adopted are reasonable and that he has applied those criteria rationally and objectively."