- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rolls-Royce Plc v Unite the Union
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from proceedings initiated on 6 June 2008 by Company A against Union A under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, seeking a determination on the legality of including length of service as a redundancy selection criterion under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. The High Court, after directions by Bean J and a hearing before Judge A, dismissed the claim in favor of the union. The company appealed this decision. The collective agreements in question, covering Company A's Derby and Hucknall sites, incorporate length of service as one factor in redundancy selection matrices. Concerns were raised about whether this criterion constituted indirect age discrimination and whether it could be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under the relevant regulations.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is the length of service criterion in the collective agreement indirectly discriminatory within regulation 3(1)(b) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006?
- What is the meaning of "benefit" in regulation 32 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006?
- Is the use of the length of service criterion a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim within regulation 3(1)?
- Depending on the meaning of "benefit" in regulation 32(1), does it reasonably appear to Company A that its use of the length of service criterion fulfils a business need under regulation 32(2)?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The length of service criterion likely favors older employees, amounting to indirect discrimination under regulation 3, and the company cannot justify this criterion as proportionate.
- The trial judge failed to properly address the proportionality aspect of justification, focusing instead solely on the legitimacy of the aim.
- The legitimate aim was mischaracterized; the company’s aim is to fulfill a business need, not merely to achieve a peaceful redundancy process or reward loyalty.
- Loyalty is separately measured in the redundancy matrix, so length of service should not be equated with loyalty.
- The inclusion of length of service in the collective agreement does not immunize it from being unlawful under changed legal standards.
- The length of service criterion is not a "benefit" within regulation 32, which should be narrowly construed to mean tangible improvements in employment terms.
- The company cannot satisfy the requirement under regulation 32(2) that it reasonably appears to fulfill a business need by using length of service as a criterion.
- Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and the trial judge’s decision reversed.
Appellee's Arguments
- The length of service criterion is one among several balanced criteria in the redundancy selection process and is not discriminatory.
- Its inclusion in a collective agreement negotiated with the union supports its validity and should be upheld as a matter of policy.
- There is no evidence that the criterion harms the company’s business interests.
- The criterion is understood and accepted by younger employees as a fair benefit that rewards loyalty and experience.
- Under regulation 32, the length of service criterion constitutes a "benefit" and is objectively justified as encouraging loyalty and rewarding experience.
- The criterion is a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims such as protecting vulnerable older employees and promoting industrial harmony.
- The redundancy scheme differs from a blunt last-in-first-out approach and is therefore fair.
- The court should follow the precedent set by Cadman v Health and Safety Executive supporting such criteria.
- If necessary, the criterion can be justified under regulation 3 as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- The union supports the trial judge’s reasons and submits the appeal should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| FSA v Rourke (2001) | Use of declaratory relief in civil proceedings despite potential criminal liability | Supported the proposition that declaratory relief may be granted at the court’s discretion where justice and utility are served. |
| Dyson v The Attorney-General [1912] 1 Ch. 158 | Declaratory judgments may guide future conduct of parties | Relied upon to argue that declaratory relief would guide the parties' future actions regarding redundancy criteria. |
| London Passenger Transport Board v Moscrop [1942] AC 332 | Persons interested in a declaration should be parties unless special circumstances | Informed the court’s pragmatic approach to defendants, justifying the union as sole defendant. |
| Ainsbury v Millington [1987] 1 WLR 379 | Courts decide disputes, not abstract questions; exceptions for friendly actions and test cases | Guided the court’s approach to hearing an appeal without a direct lis but with public importance. |
| Kay (FC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] HL 69 | Friendly action to clarify law on public interest matters without immediate lis | Analogy used to justify hearing the appeal despite absence of direct dispute between parties. |
| Birmingham City Council v LR and others [2006] EWCA Civ 1748 | Accepting academic appeals as test cases in public interest | Supported hearing the appeal due to importance and likelihood of reoccurrence of the issue. |
| Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226 | Hearing appeals raising important points of law even if academic | Provided foundation for the court’s discretion to entertain the appeal on public interest grounds. |
| Gawler v Raettig [2007] EWCA Civ 1560 | Permission for academic appeals and conditions for doing so | Helped define the rare circumstances under which academic appeals are entertained. |
| National Coal Board v Ridgeway | Requirement that all sides of argument be fully presented in academic appeals | Supported the court’s insistence on proper representation and full argument in this case. |
| Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay [1915] 2 KB 536 | Declaratory relief does not require a subsisting cause of action | Supported the court’s jurisdiction to grant declarations in the absence of a present cause of action. |
| Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 | Principles guiding declaratory relief and its discretionary nature | Provided the framework for exercising discretion over declaratory relief in this case. |
| McCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [2008] ICR 1334 | Employment Tribunal’s role in assessing justification and proportionality in redundancy selection | Emphasized that justification assessment requires detailed factual analysis, typically by a tribunal. |
| Cadman v Health and Safety Executive [2006] ICR 1623 | Legitimacy of length of service as a factor in pay policy and employment terms | Supported the union’s argument that length of service can be a legitimate aim and benefit. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Salem [1999] 1 AC 450 | Resolution of public law issues absent a direct lis | Referenced in relation to the court’s willingness to consider important points of statutory construction. |
| Loxley v BAE Systems [2008] ICR 1347 | Policy of upholding collective agreements negotiated with unions | Supported the union’s argument that collective agreements should be respected by courts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed statutory construction exercise of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the underlying EU Directive 2000/78/EC. It identified that the length of service criterion constitutes indirect age discrimination under regulation 3(1)(b) and that the criterion confers a "benefit" within the meaning of regulation 32(1). The court emphasized that the test of justification requires that the length of service criterion be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as rewarding loyalty and experience or promoting industrial harmony.
The court acknowledged the procedural difficulties in adjudicating this issue under Part 8 proceedings without the factual matrix typically available to Employment Tribunals, especially given that individual employees affected by the criterion were not parties to the proceedings. However, it concluded that the construction and interpretation of the statutory instrument was a matter of public importance and within the court’s proper function.
The court found that the length of service criterion is one among multiple criteria in the redundancy selection process and is not determinative alone, which supports its proportionality. It also noted the collective agreements were negotiated with the union representing a majority of employees, which lends weight to their fairness and legitimacy.
While the court accepted that the company expressed doubts about whether it could justify the criterion, the court held objectively that the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It stressed that the employer’s current doubts do not negate the objective justification and that the court’s role is to interpret the law rather than to conduct a full factual inquiry, which remains available at the Employment Tribunal stage.
On regulation 32(2), the court interpreted "reasonably appears" to the employer as requiring an objective assessment of whether the use of the length of service criterion fulfills a business need, such as encouraging loyalty and rewarding experience. The court concluded that it does.
The court also considered the union’s arguments emphasizing the importance of collective bargaining and the acceptance of the criterion by employees, finding these persuasive in supporting the criterion’s legitimacy.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lawfulness of the length of service criterion under the Regulations, but with a clear caveat that individual employees remain entitled to raise claims before Employment Tribunals.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEAL.
This ruling confirms that the inclusion of length of service as a criterion in redundancy selection matrices negotiated through collective agreements does not, in itself, constitute unlawful indirect age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, provided it can be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim such as rewarding loyalty and experience.
The decision clarifies the interpretation of "benefit" under regulation 32 and affirms the court’s jurisdiction to hear such issues under Part 8 proceedings despite the absence of individual employees as parties, recognizing the public importance of resolving statutory interpretation questions.
No new precedent altering the fundamental principles of indirect discrimination or justification tests was established; rather, the court applied existing principles to the facts presented. The ruling leaves open the possibility for individual employees to challenge redundancy processes in Employment Tribunals, ensuring procedural fairness at the individual claim level.
Alert