Is this legal?

former_student

A relative of mine has worked for a company for the pasy 25 years, he turns 71 soon and just yesterday he received a letter from his employer.

The letter told him that due to his age he was required to write a letter to his employer stating if he still wished to work for them. The letter also stated that his employer would then make a decision if he still wished to employ him.

Is this legal, I realsie that he is 71 but he can still do the job to the required standard, he's fit and healthy and there have never been any issues with either the quantity or quality of his work. Thanks.

ben500

former_student wrote: »

A relative of mine has worked for a company for the pasy 25 years, he turns 71 soon and just yesterday he received a letter from his employer.

The letter told him that due to his age he was required to write a letter to his employer stating if he still wished to work for them. The letter also stated that his employer would then make a decision if he still wished to employ him.

Is this legal, I realsie that he is 71 but he can still do the job to the required standard, he's fit and healthy and there have never been any issues with either the quantity or quality of his work. Thanks.

I believe it is, depending on his duties and responsibilites and the availability of alternative roles of course, but there are others here who would be able to give you current advice as mine is somewhat dated.

tightbarsteward

When employee's reach pensionable age ie 65 for men, they are supposed to pen a letter saying that they would still like to be employed beyond their birthday, 6 months previous. The employer is not legally obliged to keep them on. More so if the job is fairly manual & physical the company will probably let them go. They do where I work.

former_student

tightbarsteward wrote: »

When employee's reach pensionable age ie 65 for men, they are supposed to pen a letter saying that they would still like to be employed beyond their birthday, 6 months previous. The employer is not legally obliged to keep them on. More so if the job is fairly manual & physical the company will probably let them go. They do where I work.

I understand what you are saying but he reached pension age almost 6 years ago so why spring this letter on him now? Besides as I said in the original post he's able to do the necessary work and he gets reduced pay because of his age.

Savvy_Sue

Worth seeing what ACAS has to say about age discrimination, but it may be that this company has always had a policy of requiring that letter if someone wants to work beyond the age of 70 (ie once they turn 71).

I can understand requiring a letter: you might be assuming that the person wants to carry on working, and the person might be clear in their own mind that of course they're retiring at X age. Or 'everyone' retires at 65, so of course this person will too, when they have no intention of doing so! Putting it in writing makes it clear on both sides, allows the employer to consider whether the person IS still doing the job well (you do get situations where someone isn't up to the job and doesn't realise it!) and also to check appropriate insurance is in place.

In fact it may be an insurance thing: I know we have insurance cover for all our staff of any age, but for volunteers the level of cover is reduced once they reach one age, and they are not insured at all once they're over another age, unless we declare them by name, and then it's pretty limited.

LittleVoice

Age 70 (ie at the end of the 69th year) is when the age discrimination law ceases to protect someone from being forced to retire. Till then a dismissal would have to be on the grounds of competency (or redundancy etc as for any age).

I was concerned to hear that former_student's relative is paid less because of his age. If he is doing work of the required standard, why is that?

firesidemaid

i too was concerned by the comment about being 'paid less' - what does that mean?

the new age discrimination laws came in last october. maybe the letter is because it's his first birthday post the new laws coming in.

does he have a good relationship with his employers? perhaps he could have a relaxed chat with them?

former_student

He's paid less because of his age, there has not been a reduced workload, I presumed there was nothing that could be done about this because he is 70.

He does have a good relationship with his employer but I was hoping even at the age of 71 that he might have some legal backing if push came to shove.

Ageism is really something that we should be ashamed of.

LittleVoice

I'm sad that the good relationship with the employer meant he felt he had to agree to their changing his terms and conditions by paying less because he was 70. Perhaps they thought his not having to pay NI contributions after 65 would offset some of that?

If "push comes to shove", then I think as long as they give him appropriate notice they can say "goodbye" without any compensation.

He needs to write the letter asking to continue working and see what happens then. They may decide to continue employing him for now - particularly as he may be costing them less on an hourly basis.

All the best to him on this.

former_student

Thanks a lot to all who have helped me on this, I will keep you all posted as to the outcome.

firesidemaid

i have just come back to this thread.

unless as another poster said he is paid less gross because of the NI contributions, surely paying someone less because they have reached a certain age is illegal in employment law?

please do let us know how you/he gets on.