Comments (2)
Dumbledore - final salary pension scheme?
The Government announced last week that the Default Retirement Age is to finally be abolished from next year. This means that by October 2011 it will no longer be lawful for employers to demand that their employees retire at 65. The previous government announced it was going to review the issue last year veryshortly before the final hearing in the Heyday saga (and did so probably to avoid losing the case and face).
There have been some interesting reported cases over the last couple of weeks on a broad range of topics. For instance,
Legal Representation at Internal Disciplinary Hearings
Yesterday Ian Barratt of Mind Strengths Ltd published his “Seven Top Stress Management Tips for Employees”. Today I am publishing my “top tips” for employers hoping to avoid claims for stress at work from being commenced against them.
Age Discrimination, Bullying & Harassment, Contracts of Employment, Equality, Personal Injury, Race Discrimination, Religion and Belief Discrimination, constructive dismissal, disability discrimination, stress at work
ACAS, bullying, constructive dismissal, discrimination, harassment, how do I cope with stress, HSA, HSE, Ian Barratt, Management Standards, MHSW, Mind Strengths, Personal Injury, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, stress at work, stress+management, TUC, victimisation
As promised last Monday, I am delighted today to welcome my first guest blogger, Ian Barratt (pictured, right) of Mind Strengths Ltd, to present his Seven Top Stress Management Tips on this third Monday of January, the allegedly most miserable day of the year. Ian is a qualified stress management consultant speaker and author. His book “The Phoenix Strategy”, co-authored with Amanda Robinson was published last October. Mind Strengths Ltd is a consultancy company offering workplace strress management , wellbeing and support services. Tomorrow I will look at how employers can minimise the risk of being sued for stress at work by employees.
Age Discrimination, Bullying & Harassment, Contracts of Employment, Equality, Personal Injury, Race Discrimination, Religion and Belief Discrimination, constructive dismissal, stress at work, unfair dismissal
constructive dismissal, discrimination, employees, how do I cope with stress, Ian Barratt, Mind Strengths, Miserable Monday, occupational illness, Personal Injury, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, stress at work, stress+management
Over on the Dale Langley & Co website I have written about the recently reported case of age discrimination by Achim Beck at his former employer, CIBC. Click here for the post. The case was reported on Times Online on the 29th December. Although Mr Beck has succeeded with his claim, the Employment Tribunal has not yet made an award of compensation and a “remedies hearing” for that purpose is awaited in due course, unless it settles beforehand. I’ll keep an eye out for what could be a big award.
Hot off the press comes news, via the BBC website, that the Heyday challenge to the default retirement age has been defeated in the High Court. This means that it is not illegal for employers to insist that an employee retires on their 65th birthday, although that conflicts with the Age Discrimination legislation. At the moment I have not seen the rationale for the decision but will post on this again when I have.
Most people know that employers these days shouldn’t in job interviews ask women of child-bearing age when they intend to start a family. Nor should they now ask potential employees how old they are. The reason in both cases is that (a) it is usually going to be none of the employer’s business but, also, (b) it runs the risk of the applicant/employee later stating that the failure to appoint them was on discriminatory grounds. A report on the Personnel Today website from a few days ago questioned the wisdom of Cherwell District Council in asking employees to state whether they intended to retire in the next two or three years. The Council is currently asking staff to work fewer hours or to work without pay to avoid the need for redundancies. However, its request to staff to detail their plans and aspirations over the next two to three years could lead to them facing an age discrimination claim, suggests the article, if an employee could show that they were selected for redundancy because of their stated plan to seek retirement. The same risk would apply if a woman stated she intended to start a family and was subsequently place “at risk”.
Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has come under fire for not only being a political lightweight out of his depth in one of the most important offices of state, but also for wearing a moustache (well, we are approaching the silly season). An article at www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6709864.ece suggests that a moustache often signifies the wearer is homosexual or, of more importance to this blog, that it is a symbol of ”the constipated mentality of an inept, small-town jobsworth”, being the impression that Mr Ainsworth’s “facial furniture” gives to some. I make no comment on that.
On the 28th November last year I posted on the above case, which was heard in the High Court, on the redundancy criteria used by Rolls Royce when selecting candidates for redundancy. Please see that post for more details of the criteria used. The interesting point about this particular case is that it looked at the interplay between redundancy selection criteria and the Age Discrimination legislation. Rolls Royce were seeking a declaration from the Court that their redundancy criteria, which added one point per year of service to individual employees’ scores (in addition to the scores they received for various other criteria) WAS in breach of the Age Discrimination regulations. This is because employees with longer service would get more points and was thus indirectly discriminatory towards younger employees.
Regular readers may recall I’ve been following the tortoise like progress of the challenge against the “default retirement age” (“DRA”) of 65 that is enshrined in the Age Discrimination legislation. It is becoming a bit like the case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House, the Chancery case that went on for so long no one could remember what it was originally about. Basically, Heyday, part of Age Concern allege that having any fixed retirement age is inherently discriminatory. The Age Discrimination Regulations allow discrimination only if it can be objectively justified – ie that the employer has a good reason for imposing the restriction. In this case the Defendant is the government.
I am a Partner in Dale Langley & Co of 60 Lombard Street London EC3V 9EA. Please call me if you would like advice on any issues relating to employment law or litigation. I only give legal advice on specific matters through the firm, not this blog
I also write a blog on legal services deregulation called "There may be Trouble Ahead" - see link below
The Guardian
