Forced Retirement @65 Advice Please...

redwine2a

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

This link may help. There is a reference in the article to a legal challenge - that was the heyday case which is currently before the ECJ to challenge forced retirement at 65yrs, but the advocate general has already indicated that in his opinion this is lawful, so the case is unlikely to succeed.


all the w's.ageconcern ...see full link on zzzLazyDaisy's post

This is an extract from the article which may be of interest to you....

What if you are given less than six months’ notice of your retirement‚ or your right to request staying on?
If you’re given less than six months’ notice of your retirement date‚ or of your right to request not to retire‚ you can claim up to eight weeks’ pay at the Employment Tribunal (this is currently limited to a maximum of £330 per week)‚ so the maximum total compensation is £2‚640 (figures correct as at March 2008 - the compensation limits usually go up every February).

• If your employer fails to give you at least six months’ notice‚ they should still tell you about your right to request to continue working‚ as soon as possible.
• If they give you less than two weeks’ notice‚ the retirement will automatically be an unfair dismissal.

Firstly, thanks to everyone for their thoughts, it is very useful to throw things up in the air and see what comes down!

So, it looks like there is well 'diddly squat' we can do about termination of employ, however because the written notification of intent to end employment was more than 2weeks but less than 6months they are in breach of procedure and can be fined(8weeks wage), via internal appeal then, if neccessary via independant employ tribunal.

Ok, here's the real rub :mad:, there is another string to this one:
Three(3) weeks prior to 'end of employ' notification she was able to take redundancy and get 10weeks pay (due to a reorganisation). She did'nt act on this because she was led to believe, albeit verbally that the usual system of 1yr renewable contracts was available and there was no problem, at this moment many past 65 employee's work on this system.
I suspect the system has now been scrapped(secretly) due to impending change of Gov., and she's one of the transition to 'work until you drop' losers. Sorry for the long ramble. :whistle:

So looks like the 'internal appeal' is the first step....
Joe

HOWMUCH

If your partner is 65 she has already worked for 5 years past retirement age as it's currently 60 for women born on or before 5th April 1950. Annual reviews are common after the set retirement age looking at capability and performance of the person. Looks like they have decided to call it a day with her.

woody01

Mudd14 wrote: »

But they must still follow the dimissal procedure which would be giving at least 1 weeks notice for every years service. Or they must pay in lieu of notice.

Sorry but really you dont have much chance apart from putting in the request to work behond retirement and appealing the decision. But lets face it both are unlikely to happen if they are forcing their policies on retirement already.

Its not dismissal.
There is no requirement for 1 week per year, and i don't know where you got that from.

woody01

anamenottaken wrote: »

If the company don't have to give notice about retirement, why are so many organisations doing just that? Would your advice to such companies be that they should just say, "Here's your final pay for the month you have just worked: enjoy your retirement."?

What's "the correct age"? How is that defined?

Sorry...i have no idea what you are on about and you are plucking advice out of thin air.

National retirement age, for almost all workers is 60 or 65, dependant on man or woman age.
Of course they must give notice, but this is defined , and commenced when the employee is informed they are to be terminated due to retirement age.
The company, 1 month before someone retires, notifies the employee that they are no longer required to work due to their retirement age being reach (about to).
The employee then can either accept this, or appeal against it for whatever reason they chose.
The company then listens to the appeal, and makes a decision.
The employee though, at retirement age, has no recourse if the company decide not to extend employment.

I have done this on more than one occassion and this is the law.

anamenottaken

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry...i have no idea what you are on about and you are plucking advice out of thin air.

National retirement age, for almost all workers is 60 or 65, dependant on man or woman age.
Of course they must give notice, but this is defined , and commenced when the employee is informed they are to be terminated due to retirement age.
The company, 1 month before someone retires, notifies the employee that they are no longer required to work due to their retirement age being reach (about to).
The employee then can either accept this, or appeal against it for whatever reason they chose.
The company then listens to the appeal, and makes a decision.
The employee though, at retirement age, has no recourse if the company decide not to extend employment.

I have done this on more than one occassion and this is the law.

One month or six?

Retirement - the process to follow

It may be helpful to follow a fixed process when employees are due to retire, including:

• Between six and 12 months before the intended retirement date (IRD), checking that the employee wants to retire - this is a legal requirement. The employee may wish to continue working after their IRD, especially if it's possible for them to draw part of their occupational pension and continue working under the terms of their pension scheme.

(from http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073791886 )

Lady007

Quote from Employment law reference manual.....

How should an employer deal with a request to continue working beyond retirement age?
The employer is under a duty to consider the request and must normally hold a meeting to discuss it with the employee. The employee has the right to be accompanied at the meeting by a colleague of his or her choice. If it is not practicable to hold a meeting within a reasonable period, the employer must consider any representations made by the employee before making a decision.
As soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, the employer must inform the employee in writing of the outcome. It may grant the request and give written notice to the employee that his or her employment will continue indefinitely, for a specific period or until a specified date. Where the decision is to refuse the request, the notice should confirm that the employer wishes to retire the employee and the date on which the dismissal is to take effect. If the request is refused, or the employer agrees to continued employment for a shorter period than that requested by the employee, the employer must also inform the employee of his or her statutory right of appeal. If the employee appeals, a further meeting should be held within a reasonable period to discuss the request before the employer makes its decision.
Must an employer give reasons for refusing a request to continue working beyond retirement age?
There is no duty on an employer to give a reason if a request to carry on working has been refused. However, the Acas guidance on the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) suggests that giving reasons may enable the employee to leave with dignity and respect, and may help the employer to maintain good workplace relationships with other employees.


Duty to inform
Under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, Schedule 6, paragraph 2 employers have a duty to inform employees in writing of the date on which their employment will terminate by reason of retirement and of the right to make a request to carry on working beyond the intended retirement date. This notice must be given no earlier than 12 months, and no later than six, before the intended retirement date. The duty applies regardless of whether or not the retirement age has already been specified elsewhere, for example in the employee's statement of terms and conditions.
If the notice is not given within this timescale, the employee may bring a complaint that the employer has failed to comply with its retirement notification requirements. If the tribunal finds that the complaint is well founded, it will order the employer to pay compensation of up to eight weeks' pay, subject to the statutory cap.
o

jdturk

thing is companies can just look at it and decide whether telling someone they are gettng retired in 2 weeks time is more cost effective (and payin the 8 week penalty to the retiree) than employing the retiree for another 6 months.

Whilst it would be callous and not recommended the company could give whatever notice it requires as long as they are willing to pay what is a paltry fine (it should be 6 months pay IMO)

redwine2a

Lady007: Thanks for your post, useful info.... also 'no reason(s)' were given, this increasingly looks like an amateur 'mushroom management' setup which will go to appeal if only to show HR what the local management is like in this field.


jdturk: Yes, I would think they will just pay the 8week fine and as you say its not enough.
Don't think they are too bothered about employee moral, they do seem have a good turnover of staff now, sign of the times??

Thanks again

anamenottaken

HOWMUCH wrote: »

If your partner is 65 she has already worked for 5 years past retirement age as it's currently 60 for women born on or before 5th April 1950. Annual reviews are common after the set retirement age looking at capability and performance of the person. Looks like they have decided to call it a day with her.

Whilst, currently, a woman reaches state pension age at 60, retirement age in recent legislation (as in right to request to work beyond retirement age) is 65 for both men and women.

zzzLazyDaisy

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry...i have no idea what you are on about and you are plucking advice out of thin air.

National retirement age, for almost all workers is 60 or 65, dependant on man or woman age.

You are confusing state pension age with defined retirement age in employment, which is 65 for both men and women (in the absence of some other retirement age being agreed)

Of course they must give notice, but this is defined , and commenced when the employee is informed they are to be terminated due to retirement age.
The company, 1 month before someone retires, notifies the employee that they are no longer required to work due to their retirement age being reach (about to).

This is wrong. The law changed in 2006.

If you are still following this process you are at risk of an 8 week 'fine' if someone takes you to an employment tribunal for failure to give proper notice (tho as others have said, this is not good enough in my view, and the compensation should really be the difference between 6 months and the actual notice given - but that's just my opinion)