Retirement
In Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges mbH [2011] IRLR 51 ECJ, the ECJ held that art.6(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive does not necessarily preclude domestic legislation that permits the use of automatic termination clauses based on the retirement age, or the use of such clauses in collective agreements. The crucial issue is whether or not such measures are objectively justified.
The employment tribunal in this case found that comments from two managers in capability meetings, suggesting that an underperforming older worker might consider early retirement, constituted age discrimination.
In R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 HC, the High Court confirmed that the compulsory retirement of employees at or above the age of 65 by reference to the prescribed procedure in the age discrimination Regulations is lawful. However, the Court could not "see how 65 could remain" as the default retirement age, following the Government's review in 2010.
The European Court of Justice has held that the UK legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement can, in principle, be justified under the Framework Directive.
In Regent Security Services Ltd v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee transferred under the 1981 TUPE Regulations could choose to enforce new, more beneficial terms agreed with the transferee, even where the variation was connected with the transfer.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Case C-411/05, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its judgment that the Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78/EC) does not preclude a Spanish law permitting clauses in collective agreements that allow employees to be compulsorily retired when they reach a specified age.
In Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that there is no implied contractual obligation for an employer to take reasonable care for its employees' economic wellbeing.
Early retirement and enhanced benefits paid on dismissal for redundancy to employees who have reached a certain age are not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" within the meaning of article 3(4) of the EC Business Transfers Directive, even if those benefits were calculated by reference to the rules for calculating normal pension benefits, holds the European Court of Justice in Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd.
An employer did not act in fundamental breach of an employee's contract of employment when it required him to retire at the age of 55, in accordance with its retirement policy aimed at achieving a younger workforce, even though the contract incorporated an equal opportunities policy containing an express commitment to offer equal opportunities regardless of age, rules the EAT in Secretary of State for Scotland v Taylor.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to retirement.