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
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.
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.
Over the last few weeks I’ve been writing about the various issues surrounding redundancy procedure and selection. A couple of weeks ago an interesting High Court case was reported which dealt with the issues arising on redundancy where selection on the grounds of age became relevant. The case in question was Rolls-Royce v Unite, and was unusual in that the employer was seeking to argue that its own selection criteria was age discriminatory and the Union was arguing that it was not. Normally, of course, one would expect the positions to be reversed.
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
