1069 - 1613

Never Too Old

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 come into force on 1 October 2006. The Regulations prohibit unjustified direct and indirect age discrimination. They also make it unlawful to harass or victimise on the grounds of age. It is important to note that these prohibitions apply to the young and old alike.

The Regulations recognise that employers may sometimes have good age-related reasons for treating employees differently. Difference in treatment is therefore deemed to be justified if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Guidance published by the Department of Trade and Industry suggests that, to be proportionate, the discriminatory effect of any age-based practice will require to be significantly outweighed by the importance and benefits of its legitimate aim and the employer should have no reasonable alternative. Economic factors, such as business needs and efficiency, may be legitimate aims but it will not be enough by itself for an employer to argue that it would be cheaper to discriminate.

What is the position if an employer wishes to reward long serving employees with certain benefits, such as increased holiday entitlement. Applying the basic principles of age discrimination, such a practice would constitute indirect discrimination on the basis that younger workers are less likely to have acquired the length of service that would qualify them for the benefits. The Regulations deal with this by expressly preserving an employer's right to award benefits based on service of 5 years or less. So if, for example, an employer has a scheme whereby, after 4 year's service - employees get an extra couple of days holiday, there is no question of that amounting to age discrimination. Where the benefits are awarded on the basis of service of more than 5 years, the practice would constitute discrimination unless it can be said to fulfil a business need, such as encouraging loyalty or rewarding experience

At present, there is an upper age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights. The Regulations remove that limit and, unless there is a genuine retirement, older workers now have as much right to claim unfair dismissal or to receive a redundancy payment as younger workers. The upper age limits for Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay and Statutory Paternity Pay are also removed.

It is in the area of retirement that the Regulations are at their most novel. They introduce new retirement procedures that are designed to enable a constructive dialogue between employees wishing to continue working beyond retirement age and their employers. They also impact on the law of unfair dismissal and it is probably convenient to look first at that aspect of the Regulations.

At present, there are five categories of fair reasons for dismissing an employee. Those include conduct, capability and redundancy. From October, there will be a sixth category, namely retirement. The Regulations provide that, for retirement to be the reason for dismissal, the dismissal must take place on or after the date when the employee reaches the employer's normal retirement age or, if the employer does not have a normal retirement age, the default retirement age of 65. If the employee is dismissed before that date, the reason for dismissal will not be retirement. If an employer wishes to fix a normal retirement age below 65, that lower age must be objectively justified or else it will constitute discrimination.

Turning to the new retirement procedures, they provide that employers must notify employees of their intended retirement date not more than one year, but no less than six months, in advance. If they do not, the employee may be entitled to compensation. The Regulations also impose, what is referred to as, "a continuing duty to inform". This applies where the employer has failed to give notice six months in advance. It places the employer under a duty to notify until the 14th day before the proposed retirement date. If the employer fails to comply with this duty - i.e. fails to give the minimum 14 days notice of retirement - then any subsequent dismissal for reason of retirement is deemed to be unfair.

If the employer has given at least six months notice of retirement, and the employee wishes to work beyond the intended date of retirement, the employee must make a written request not to retire more than three months prior to the intended retirement date. If the employer has given less than six months notice - the written request can be made at any time prior to the intended date of retirement. This rule provides an added incentive to employers to comply with the six months notice period as it removes the possibility of last minute requests not to retire and the uncertainty that those would create. The Regulations provide that the employee's request must state whether the employee wishes his employment to continue indefinitely, for a stated period or to a fixed date.

If the employee submits a written request to retire, the employer is under a duty to consider that request. If possible, a meeting should be held with the employee to discuss the request and, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, the employer must inform the employee whether or not the request is to be granted. The employee has the right to appeal if the request is refused in its entirety or if it is granted for a period less than that sought by the employee. If the employee appeals then, where possible, a meeting should be held to discuss the appeal. If the employer fails to comply with the duty to consider either the employee's request not to retire or the employee's appeal against refusal, or partial refusal, of such a request, then the subsequent retirement of the employee will constitute an unfair dismissal.

Although novel, in the sense that no other anti-discrimination legislation has comparable provisions, it remains to be seen how effective the new procedures will be. Certainly, if an employer is determined to get rid of employees when they reach 65, the procedures are not going to prevent that. So long as the employer goes through the necessary steps of giving notice, considering any request not to retire and properly dealing with appeals, the retired employee has no redress against the employer regardless of how good a case they can present for not retiring. However, the Regulations do at least provide a means by which employees can raise the possibility of working on and, to that extent at least, they are to be welcomed.

Subscribe to our news feeds

Keep up-to-date with all of our publications, legal updates, firm news and events.

Firm NewsLegal UpdatesSMIBEvents