header-logo header-logo

04 November 2010
Issue: 7440 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

DRA abolition delay

Early retirement threat for older workers

Transitional arrangements for the repeal of the default retirement age are “unacceptable” and could lead to many older employees being retired early, the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) has warned.

In July, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published its consultation, Phasing out the Default Retirement Age (DRA), proposing a six-month transitional period ending with full abolition in October 2011.

In its response to the proposals, the ELA recommended that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Equality and Human Rights Commission be given time to draw up “authoritative but non-prescriptive guidance” for employers.

Consequently, abolition of the default retirement age should be delayed until “at least” April 2012—otherwise, employers may retire older workers rather than face the uncertainty of keeping them on.

James Davies, chair of ELA’s working party on the proposals, says: “Clear codes and guidance will also provide a positive framework for retirement discussions for employees, rather than an annual ordeal during which employees have to argue for their right to continue working.”

The government could introduce rules where, for example, organisations above a particular size are required to produce “senior plans” or hold “staying on discussions” with employees above a specific age, he said.

The ELA further recommended that retirement be stated specifically to come within the “some other substantial reason” ground for dismissal or be listed as a potentially fair reason for dismissal in the Employment Rights Act 1996. This, the ELA says, would give employers and employees greater clarity than at present, where it is left to employers to argue that it comes within the scope of “some other substantial reason”.

Issue: 7440 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll