At the end of last month, judgment was handed down in the Heyday litigation – a long running campaign by Age Concern to have the laws allowing compulsory retirement at 65 struck from the statute book as incompatible with European law.
Of course, the slow machinations of the European justice system means I now post on this subject on an annual basis only. In 2006 the proceedings were started in the English High Court, in 2007 the reference was made to the ECJ, and all related tribunal claims stayed, in 2008 the Advocate General announced his opinion, in March 2009 the ECJ promulgated its decision, referring the question of whether or not our regulations were lawful back to the English court.
See my post on the AG’s opinion for the legal background, but the most important question the High Court had to decide was whether the UK’s default retirement age of 65 (after which you can dismiss a person without them having any recourse to age discrimination remedies) was lawful. The message back from the ECJ had been that it could be, if sufficiently justified by “legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives”.
The very brief answer is that yes, it was, but would not be so now. This means that the default retirement age (DRA) stands in respect of any claims brought over it to date, including many that still stayed in the employment tribunals.
Mr Justice Blake indicated however that if the government hadn’t promised to review the level of the the DRA in early 2010 he would have ruled the provision unlawful, and that when that review is conducted a level of 65 would be unlikely to be justified. His judgment can be found here: Age UK, R (on the application of) v Attorney General [2009] EWHC 2336
The government’s announcement came only three days before the present case was heard.
Of course it’s impossible to know what transitional arrangements will apply to amendment of the DRA, but no doubt many employers will be receiving advice at present that they ought to hurry up with dismissing any unwanted 65+ employees that they might have. They key point will be whether, for the new DRA to apply, the date of the dismissal must fall before or after the legislative change, or the notifying of the Intended Retirement Date under the procedure. If the former, then employers may have already missed the boat for giving the required six months notice, if the latter then we can expect a culling of 65 – 70 year old employees in the months ahead.
I worked 3yr over ‘retirement’ age of 65 and had planned to work upto 70yr old. As a professional one can often choose to work to an older age simply by becoming self employed, a consultant. Practically there are risks to the customer/client and one’s business strategy by increasing requirements to maintain CPD (Continuing Professional Practice) or simply increased failing health.
CPD can be costly and to a small business can diminish projected profits.
Health is unpredictable, and illness can quickly nullify one’s income expectations.
Decisions to continue working are dependent upon one’s own preferences, current health, market trends, and anticipated pension.
Choice to continue is not an option for everyone, but to those who can there are questions.
Does one want to maintain a current lifestyle? Then serious effort need to be made to get additional income.
Are you tired of working and can you adjust your lifestyle to your anticipated pension?
The big question is ‘Why should anyone in a fit and healthy condition, with marketable skills be required to retire?’
Other questions which should be addressed are ‘Why does state pension get handed out by one hand and taken back in taxation by the other?’. Surely there must be a government saving in civil servants by the omission of the work required to effect the deduction of tax, and hence omission of salaries. Which is the lesser, salary or unemployment payments (and all other benefits). However who would influence the decision on this politicians or civil servants?
Back to the retirement thread. Use of the retiring population does continue. Many odd jobbing tasks using former skills are carried out in all communities. The threat of the taxman will always be there for these pensioners. Should it be? Should tax thresholds be higher for these older, capable people? Should there be no tax?
If mandatory retirement is introduced will it apply to politicians in both houses?
I find it interesting that a short while ago interest was expressed in extending retirement age. The ‘credit crunch’ hit the world and statutory retirement ages are being reconsidered. Why not allow businesses to decide within its own business need a criteria against which employees, and even directors, are measured for continuing employment? Risky perhaps? A return to the good/bad past? Is it happening anyway for the under retirement age employees? So why not open age? There are some financial companies who ‘phase out’ employees at the older end by a gradual reduction in working hours and and introduction of new staff to be trained by them. Is this a way forward? The retiring employee might even be retained ‘on call’ for however long each party considers necessary. There may even people prepared to give voluntary time in such circumstances of a few hours here and there just to feel of worth amongst valued aquaintances.
Some people find it hard to work beyond 50yrs old, others continue into their 80′s and beyond.
I leave this as an open page, and leave it to better minds than mine to consider any worth that there might be in what I have written.