Case report round-up: Cap on enhanced redundancy pay not unlawful

XpertHR's latest case reports cover:

Age discrimination: Compulsory retirement at age 65 was objectively justified In Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2010] IRLR 865 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal did not err in finding the claimant's compulsory retirement at age 65 objectively justified. The policy was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of encouraging young people to seek employment, through the ability to offer good promotion prospects, and of promoting collegiality in the firm. (Employment Review)
Age discrimination: Cap on enhanced redundancy pay not unlawful In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie EAT/0024/10, the EAT held that a contractual redundancy scheme that capped payments at the total amount of earnings that the employee would have received prior to retirement was justified as a proportionate means of preventing redundant employees from receiving a windfall. (Employment Review)
Discussion of selection criteria scores must form part of a proper redundancy consultation process In Pinewood Repro Ltd v Page EAT/0028/10, the EAT held that a fair redundancy process involves consulting with an employee on his or her selection criteria scores and that, depending on the circumstances, this may involve an explanation of those scores. (Personnel Today)

Also

Was this article helpful?