Employers retiring employees at 65 at risk of age discrimination

Chris Ball
Member - 4 posts

This is a blatant attempt to get around the age discrimination regulations. The regulations allow an employer to compel an employee to retire at the normal retirement age, providing that age is not less than 65. An enforced retirement at this age is a "fair" reason for dismissal and providing this is the reason there will be a good defence in an employment tribunal. Hence 65 is known as the default retirement age (DRA) and many employers believe that using this DRA as an opportunity to say "goodbye" means that they do not have to justify a dismissal at a later point when the individual ceases (perhaps) to be as useful or competent as they might want them to be.

Of course this is very narrow and misconceived as many older employees are actually excellent in their jobs and it makes no sense at all to get rid of them. Your employer is trying to get the best of both worlds. He/She wants to keep you as a good employee who can continue to do a useful job but they also want to make use of the DRA to put you on a temporary contract or some other version of an inferior contract with less security and greater ease of dismissal at some point in the future. Even if the contract does not change in any other way, beginning a new contract will arguably break your service so that redundany rights and other acquired rights start from zero. This is the reason for the month's gap.

I appreciate that you may not have much choice in this because the employer holds all the strong cards. If you don't accept the break in service you may not be taken back as a casual employee. However you may want to take legal advice independently about whether this month off really does represent a break in service (I think it is arguable that it will not) and you may also want to note that if you are in future faced with an employment claim of some kind - eg unfair dismissal etc this is a point that should be argued having regard to the specific circumstances of your case.

You may want to contact TAEN - The Age and Employment Network and provide details of any subsequent developments. (See www.taen.org.uk)

Graham Jones
Member - 10 posts

Many thanks Chris for your comments I agree fully that the employer is loosing out on employees experience. I also know that in the past unions thought the retirement of employees was a good idea as it ensured a person was taken on and this reduced the number of unemployed i dont consider this is a reason anyone would openly agree to now. I will take up the option you suggest, once again many thanks.