DWP CONSULTATION - TECHNICAL CHANGES TO AUTO ENROLMENT
25 March 2013
The DWP have published a consultation designed to improve the automatic enrolment process.
The consultation document outlines the amendments the DWP are proposing to give more flexibility on pay reference periods, the automatic enrolment joining window, and the form of the opt out notice. It also sets out proposals to align the contribution deadline for all new joiners and amend the Test Scheme Standard. The consultation also seeks views on other possible easements for employers providing good pension schemes and potential future changes to remove the automatic enrolment duty where pension saving is not appropriate or where further pension saving could result in financial detriment, i.e. for those who are or should be protected for tax reasons.
The closing date for responses is 7 May. The CIPP will be conducting a survey to seek the payroll profession’s views.
Default Retirement Age
FIRMS WIN RIGHT TO RETIRE WORKERS AT 65
2 May 2012
Older workers can be forced to retire at 65 if their employers show it is in the “public interest”, despite the Government scrapping the default retirement age, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
The Telegraph reports:
Companies have been told that they can still dismiss employees on the grounds of age as long as they conform to guidelines laid down by the court. They have been told that each case must have a wider justification than the commercial interest of the business.
Legal experts said the decision gave the go-ahead to firms to get rid of employees at 65, just months after the practice supposedly became unlawful.
Yesterday’s ruling concerned the case of Leslie Seldon, a partner in a Kent law firm, who claimed he had been treated unfairly when compulsorily retired at 65. He lost his appeal but had his case sent back to the employment tribunal that first heard it for reconsideration on the grounds of the new guidelines.
The case involved an interpretation of a rule that allows employers to justify age discrimination if they can prove it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
Mr Seldon’s case was dismissed, but the court set out new guidelines meaning that companies must consider a range of alternatives to retiring an employee and be able to show a specific public interest justification in each case where retirement is imposed. These justifications could include making it easier to recruit younger workers, being able to promote middle management, and being able to plan for the future and train others, as well as being able to end the careers of older workers with “dignity”. Companies will have to show these aims are legitimate and genuinely being pursued.
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 258 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker