-
- Date:
- 29 January 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 24 December 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 17 October 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 7 May 2004
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 1 August 2002
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 15 November 1997
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 1 September 1994
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The time limit for bringing a complaint against a public sector employer in respect of discriminatory retirement did not begin to run until the date the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Remedies) Regulations 1993 came into force, rules a Southampton industrial tribunal (Chair: I T Soulsby) in Wild v Portsmouth & SE Hants Health Authority.
-
- Date:
- 1 May 1986
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (26.2.86) EOR7E, the European Court of Justice rules that compulsory retirement of men and women at different ages contravenes the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.
-
- Date:
- 19 March 1985
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Birch and Humber v University of Liverpool the Court of Appeal upholds a tribunal's finding that the termination of employment which resulted from the employees' offer to retire early and the employer's acceptance of that offer was not a dismissal but a termination by mutual agreement; so, there having been no dismissal, the employees were not entitled to a redundancy payment.