Keith Hutson, a regional officer at Unite, Mr Browne’s union, described the outcome as well deserved. “The systematic intimidation and bullying of a single individual, the like I have never seen in my career as a union regional officer, was breathtaking and callous,” he said. A spokesman for the NHS trust denied that Mr Browne had been discriminated against and said it was appealing against the decision. IS IT JUSTIFIABLE TO RETIRE OLDER EMPLOYEES TO MAKE WAY FOR YOUNG TALENT? 20 January 2012 A landmark legal dispute where the appellant is claiming he was forcibly retired at 65, will question whether forced retirement should be justifiable to make way for young talent coming through. HR Magazine reports: With the removal of the default retirement age, and the fact age discrimination claims overtook race discrimination claims in 2011 in terms of numbers, whatever is decided in Seldon will have much broader application. Commenting in advance of the hearing, Paul McFarlane, partner in the employment team at law firm Weightmans, said: "It will be interesting to see what view(s) the Supreme Court takes on whether the legitimate aims are justifiable. What makes this Supreme Court decision potentially more significant than when it was first heard; is that the default retirement age provisions, previously contained in the Regulations, have now been repealed. Accordingly, all employers, who continue to use a retirement age, will now have to show what the legitimate aim(s) is/are for its continued use; and show that their legitimate aim(s) are proportionate i.e. both necessary and appropriate. "With the removal of the default retirement age, it must be questioned whether having a congenial and supportive culture in a firm, which does not need to have performance management, is both necessary and appropriate? "Similarly, will it now be enough to put forward as a legitimate aim of enabling associates to move up the ranks? Even if this is considered to be a legitimate aim, will its continued use be considered proportionate? "A retirement age could be said to assist in the fight against youth unemployment as when vacancies are created towards the top end of an organisation, this will have a drip down effect and create new posts at the junior end of an organisation. Yet this argument only works if you work on the assumption that junior roles are filled by junior (read younger) members of staff and vice-versa - which would appear to go against the very thing that age discrimination law has been brought in to prevent i.e. employers making assumptions on an employees' capabilities based on their age.” Read the full story from HR Magazine
DETRIMENT AND CAUSATION
20 January 2012 Does a worker suffer a detriment if he refuses to sign a 48-hour week opt-out, and is then refused an opportunity for overtime by his employer?
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 61 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker