Made redundant due to retirement age

mulderbauer

Hi

My Father in Law has been employed by his local council as a site manager at a school for the past 5 years, he has just been told that he will be made redundant on his 65th Birthday giving him only 6 weeks notice, the Governors/Council decision is final and there is no point in appealing....

Questions:

1) Is there grounds for appeal? He is physically and mentally fit and sickness record is exemplary or does the law allow you to enforce redundancy based on age?
2) 6 weeks notice seems very short... is this standard council policy?
3) No redundancy money has been offered.

As you can imagine he's not particulary happy!

Any advice and assistance welcome
Thankyou

McKneff

1. sorry dont know for sure,

2. Statutory notice is 1 week for every year of service - council may differ.
(Is he truly redundant, could it just be a coincidence that he is being made redundant
at 65. I dont think they would dare say 'we are making you redundant because you are 65)
Are they replacing him. If not, then it is a redundancy situation and nothing to do with his age.

3. Dont know whether things have chnaged in the last few years but as
65 is the default age for retirement no redundancy entitlement.
in fact redundancy entitlement starts to decline by 1/12th each month at
age 64 so that by the time 12 months has passed to age 65 none is due.

But like i say legislation seems to change on a weekly basis so i may be wrong.

Same thing used to happen to females at 59 but due to the sex discimination laws women have the same rights as men. (default age is 65) and not 60
as many people think.

I can quite imagine him not being happy about it.
Has he checked his contract.

jazzyman01

It is likely that his contract states the default age of 65 as redundant. However, there is also a requirement to give at least 6 months notice to someone reaching 65. As he has only had 6 weeks this is clearly wrong and he can insist that they pay him for it or work it. He can also ask if he can work beyond 65.

mulderbauer

Thanks guys.

He has officialy been made redundant and using the age as the reason....

Just asked him to dig his contract out.

Furtner information:-

*The wrote to him a few weeks back and asked what his intentions were when he reached retirment age, he clearly stated he wantd to stay in employment with them.

*They are replacing him with someone else

*Decision was made by the board of governors at the school

* He thinks they are doing this because of his high pay grade.

Tha nks

McKneff

If they are replacing him he is not being made redundant. They are retiring him

Being made redundant means that the job no longer exists.
(not so if they are replacing him)

Have they actually used the word 'redundant' if so they are idiots.

It may be that rules are compulsory retirement at 65.

He really needs to look at his contract and the rulebook,
I would also have a word with ACAS /CAB

zzzLazyDaisy

At the moment it is perfectly legal to have a normal retirement age of 65yrs. That may change but not soon enough to help in this case.

I am amazed that the employer has used the word 'redundant' as this clearly is not a redundancy situation.

Also a retirement is not a dismissal, so no notice is required on either side. It is simply the case that the employment ends by virtue of the employee reaching the employer's normal retirement age (although that should be made clear in his contract of employment and/or employee handbook - if you like he should have been given notice when he started that his contract would end when he reached 65).

Is he in a union? If so that is the best place to start. If not, he should give your local ACAS office a ring, they give free impartial advice about employment law matters and should be able to discuss this with him in more detail.

EDIT: the issue of compulsory retirement has been litigated through the UK courts and to the European Court of Justice, and has been found to be lawful

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5854545.ece

LittleVoice

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

EDIT: the issue of compulsory retirement has been litigated through the UK courts and to the European Court of Justice, and has been found to be lawful

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5854545.ece

Thanks for post but that link didn't work for me. This might - http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/mar/05/retirement-age-eu-ruling

Pixieboy

Have a look at this http://www.laterlife.com/laterlife-age-discrimination-legislation-employers.htm gives informatio about the 2006 age discrimination legislation requirements.

More links to official sites
re Fair dismissal
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_175834
re Unfair Dismissal
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_10026692

Seems to depend on at least 6 months notice of date of retirement, and consideration of request to continue.

Pixieboy

Another link regarding the process of requesting to work beyond 65 and the right of appeal etc.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Resigningorretiring/DG_065137

Bottom line seems to be that, so long as the process is followed, dismissal on grounds of retirement is fair and they don't have to give a reason for refusing to budge at appeal.

It may be worth seeking out the Council's policy on retirement age and requests to work beyond 65 - they should probably have reviewed this around the time of the 1st October 2006 changes in age discrimination legislation. You could try searching their website or simply asking for a copy.
This should enable you to establish whether the appropriate procedures have been followed - outcome will no doubt be the same, but may be due more financially than currently being offerred if, for instance, appropriate notice hadn't been given.

Good luck!

woody01

If someone has reached the age of retirement, they can be 'pensioned off' without the employer giving reason (as it is obvious).
The employer, if using good practice, would often allow the retiring person to appeal on the grounds of mitigating an extension, but the employer has absolutely no requirement to act on it.
I have spent the last 9 months studying this.