Archive for the 'Retirement' Category

Just one day short of retirement…

Published
by
Usefully Employed
on August 8, 2008
in Retirement and Unfair Dismissal
. 0 Comments

…is a dangerous time if you’re an American cop in the movies, you’re bound to get hit with a bullet or an internal affairs investigation.

In the first instance case of Plewes v Adams Pork Produce Limited (reported by Burges Salmon) the employer’s normal (and contractual) retirement date was the day before the employee’s 65th birthday.

The age discrimination legislation provides that an employer may not have a retirement date below 65 unless there is some sort of objective justification (this is difficult to show in most fields). This chap’s was obviously below, albeit by one day.

So, despite the fact the employer seems to have correctly followed the ludicrous statutory retirement procedure, this happened:

The Tribunal held that Mr Plewes’ dismissal was unfair and, in the absence of any objective justification for a lower retirement age under 65, discriminatory. Further, given that Adams conceded that it did not follow a statutory disciplinary procedure as a result of its mistake over the retirement date, the Tribunal also applied the maximum 50% uplift to the compensatory award. … The employee’s dismissal was therefore discriminatory and he was awarded compensation of over £36,000, including an award of £7,500 for injury to feelings.

Ouch. I agree the liability for both unfair dismissal and age discrimination, but I did find myself wondering about the awards. 50% seems a high uplift where the employer followed a comprehensive procedure in good faith - but there is a woeful lack of guidance on the choice of uplift percentages. Also, was there scope in the unfair dismissal award for reducing the compensation on the just and equitable basis? I mean, OK, I’m arguing contribution by way of reaching an age, which seems wrong, but we are dealing with a dismissal that was one day away from being fair and a framework that says retirement dismissal after the age of 65 is acceptable.

I may think this over further, but it’s an odd set of circumstances.

Logan’s Run

Published
by
Usefully Employed
on December 7, 2007
in Discrimination, Retirement and Unfair Dismissal
. 1 Comment

Not many people realise you can still compulsorily retire someone at 65. Before you can though, you have to adopt some stupid procedure where you give them:

  • 6 months’ notice;
  • Invite them to come to a meeting at which they can ask to work longer (which you can just refuse because you hate them);
  • When they take offence, offer them an appeal (which you can find against them, because you hate them).

All the usual stuff about being accompanied  by trade union whatsits and so on applies as usual. What’s daft is if you don’t go through the rigmarole of all the meetings then the dismissal’s unfair, but at no point do you have to make a decision that’s at all reasonable. Sample meeting:

Old man: But I need my wages to live, please let me continue to work… I’ve worked here twenty years…
Director: No, I’m sorry, I’m confirming your retirement.
Old man: But why? In god’s name why?!
Director: I’m sick of the way you slurp your tea.
Old man: That’s ridiculous, I appeal!
 <the next week>
Managing Director: Sorry Old Man, your appeal is unsuccessful.
Old Man: But why?
Managing Director: Because I just feel like being a complete bastard today.

The madness of it all is that this dismissal is completely fair, yet the law requires the company to waste the Old Man’s time, and give him false hope, by putting him through a procedure. It’s this sort of tick-box law that doesn’t do anyone any good.

 Anyway, the reason for the post was that the Employment Tribunals have now ordered a stay on any cases which claim that a retirement dismissal is unfair. Unlucky retirees will now have to wait until the European Court of Justice decide if the UK is allowed to have a compulsory retirement age at all. More news on this in about a year’s time.

Compulsory Retirement

Published
by
Usefully Employed
on October 18, 2007
in Discrimination and Retirement
. 1 Comment

Despite the new Age Discrimination laws, employers can still compulsorily retire their employees at (usually) age 65 so long as they follow a lengthy and mostly pointless procedure. For me, this is another example of why the laws don’t make any sense, but Age Concern more constructively thought that the compulsory retirement provisions went against the EU directive which lurks behind all equality legislation. They are probably wrong however, as similar Spanish legislation has now been declared lawful by the European Court of Justice.

Personally I think it’s daft to have a policy that age discrimination is wrong, but then retaining all the old laws that say things like:

  • You can sack people because they’re 65;
  • You pay people a different minimum wage depending how old they are;
  • Older people get higher redundancy payments;
  • You have to be a certain age to drive HGV, etc.

…and a whole host of other things. As a society we are institutionally ageist, and the current position just pretends we’re not while still requiring people to discriminate.