Default Retirement Age - Court Ruling

The default retirment age of 65 is not unlawful but should be scrapped, a High Court judge has ruled in the long-running Heyday legal case. Mr Justice Blake said the DRA was not unlawful when introduced by the government in 2006, but there was now a "compelling" case given the state of the UK economy for considering whether a retirement age is necessary. This case means that the Heyday case by charities Age Concern and Help the Aged has been dismissed. It is still legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. The judge said his ruling took into account the government's intention to review the default retirement age early next year.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Default Retirement Age Ruling

The default retirment age of 65 is not unlawful but should be scrapped, a High Court judge has ruled in the long-running Heyday legal case. Mr Justice Blake said the DRA was not unlawful when introduced by the government in 2006, but there was now a "compelling" case given the state of the UK economy for considering whether a retirement age is necessary. This case means that the Heyday case by charities Age Concern and Help the Aged has been dismissed. It is still legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. The judge said his ruling took into account the government's intention to review the default retirement age early next year.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Equality in the City

The Treasury Select Committee are to collate evidence and research the role of, and number of, women in the UK financial sector. They will be gathering evidence on issues such as pay and promotion inequality, flexible working and culture and sexual harassment.

John McFall, Committee Chairman, said he hoped the inquiry would provoke an important debate about the representation and treatment of women in finance. He said that "At a time when pay and corporate governance are key issues in terms of redrawing financial regulation, the committee feels it is important to highlight the issue of gender equality in the financial services industry".

This means that the traditional model of city financial institutions will be under scrutiny and likely to lead to tighter regulation. It is important that all businesses, and not just large financial firms, put in place good equality policies, and then monitor and enforce them regularly. It is always good practice to have such policies in place with clear and objective criteria for issues such as promotions and flexible working to make sure all staff are treated equally which will of course avoid sex discrimination and other claims.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Second Jobs and The Working Time Regulations Trap

The recession has prompted many people to seek a second job to supplement their incomes and this can have implications for employers under The Working Time Regulations. Under the regulations, an employee is allowed to work a maximum of 48hours per week averaged over a 17 week period unless extended by a workforce or collective agreement. However employees can opt out of the 48 hour maximum but they can't be forced to do so, plus if they do voluntarily opt out, they can also opt back in at any time by giving notice to their employer. What some employers do not realise is that the limit applies to all jobs an employee might have. For example, many people look for second jobs in the hospitality and tourism industry in hotels, restaurants, cafes and this trend has been on the rise in the past six months according to recruitment agencies.

It is important therefore that employers check if their current employees are undertaking additional outside work, and if they are, then it would be good practice to inform them that if they are to work more than 48 hours a week on average, in all their jobs, then they will need to sign an opt out agreement. Employers might also consider reviewing employment contracts to include a clause in future which will require employees to get specific permission before accepting futher work elsewhere.

If employers consider recruiting seasonal staff even if only temporarily, it would be wise to discuss with them the amount of other work they do and if necessary ask them to sign an opt out agreement. Also remember that the opt out agreement only covers the 48 hour maximum and all other statutory requirements such as a minimum break of 20minutes in any 6 hour shift etc all still apply.

The other thing to remember about The Working Time Regulations is that they come under Health and Safety and not employment legislation so even if employers have signed opt out agreements they remain responsible for employees health and safety at work ie the need to make sure employees are not too tired to carry out their duties safely and correctly.

Contact me if you need help with opt out agreements or reviewing your employment contracts.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Annual Leave on Sick Leave

The long awaited decision in Stringer v HMRC has been made today by the House of Lords in favour of employees, overturning the previous Court of Appeal decision in this case.

It has been unanimously held that a claim for unpaid holiday or a payment on termination of employment are both unauthorised deduction claims. As a result of this decision employees can benefit from the longer time limits which apply to unlawful deduction claims which can be made within three months of the last in a series of deductions - that would allow a claim to go back more than three months if the underpayments were part of a series.

In a previous ECJ decision a member state could allow an employee on sick leave to take annual leave or could prevent the employee taking leave while off sick but only so long as the employee had the right to carry over holidays to following year/s if he or she was unable to take leave because of illness. The ECJ had also held that compensation payments on termination should not be discounted on account of sickness.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Success for Equal Pay Battle

Part-time women workers are celebrating a landmark victory in a pension payout dispute after an equal pay fight against a top private school which has lasted for more than 11 years. With the help of public-sector union UNISON, the women finally won a payout in excess of £150,000 after originally taking their pay claim to the employment tribunals in 1998. The female workers at the Haberdashers boarding school for boys and girls in Monmouth School, were denied access to the school's pension scheme, while the full-time male staff working in similar roles were allowed to join on a voluntary basis. The women argued that the school was discriminating against them because of their sex and was in breach of equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. UNISON successfully argued that pensions are deferred pay, with the non-contributory scheme, based on final salary, being worth around £1,300 a year for eight years for each worker, plus a lump sum. UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis regretted that it had taken over a decade to get justice and called for a "speeded-up system" to deal with equal pay claims. "The school dragged out the case and probably spent more in legal costs than it did to settle the dispute with their loyal workers," he said. "Employers must now think twice before they oppose these type of claims or face action from UNISON." There are 27 beneficiaries in the case, including house parents, administrators, assistant matrons, cooks and cleaners. Their claims covered the period when the pension scheme was changed - between 1976 and 1999. The claimants, many of whom are now retired and will receive between £1,500 and £17,000 each, celebrated the win. However sadly because the case was dragged out by the school for so many years before an offer of compensation was made days before the tribunal, retired Kay Bamford, who worked as a cleaner for over 10 years, died before she could benefit from the landmark victory. Tess Taylor from Monmouth, who worked at the school as an assistant matron for 27 years before retiring in 1999, hailed the ruling as "a large victory for small people." She added: "I find it crazy that a satisfactory offer from the school was only made days before the tribunal took place."

Hindsight is a wonderful thing - this is a very good example of why it is important for both employer and employees to have a robust Equality and Diversity policy in place and have a happy workplace into the bargain.....

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.

Paternity Leave Delayed

Proposals from 2005 relating to paternity leave which would have given fathers 6 months leave have been put on hold by Lord Mandelson's department to help employers in the recession. The proposal was designed to allow mothers and fathers to share a year of parental leave with the mother taking six months leave following by the father's six months leave. It would allow women to get back to work but it was criticised by business groups as being too costly and an "administrative headache".

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said plans to introduce the rights this year were now on hold. The spokesman told the Daily Telegraph (http://tinyurl.com/lotfqy): "We have not yet announced a date for extending maternity and paternity rights. We are continuing to review the appropriateness of all new regulations due to come into force in the current economic climate. It is only right that in tough economic times we look afresh at the costs and benefits of new regulations."

But Katherine Rake, director of the women's campaign group Fawcett Society, criticised the delay.

She said: "It looks like Peter Mandelson is undermining the equalities agenda again. He cannot use the recession as an excuse to roll back hard-won commitments to mums and dads."
Under the current legislation, fathers are entitled to just two weeks' paternity leave to be taken just after the baby is born.

In March, the Equality and Human Rights Commission urged the government to offer fathers 90% pay for their initial two weeks of leave at the birth of their child, and for parents to be given four months leave after the mother's initial six months leave, which either parent can take.

Disclaimer: the contents of this blog are not intended form the basis of legal advice. Independent legal advice should be taken from your own solicitor for all cases.