They will also have to show that they have considered other options, such as flexible working hours or allowing employees to stay on for a short period.
The judgment signalled that, at a time of high youth unemployment, it is in the public interest for older staff to leave companies to open up job opportunities for younger people.
Companies would have to provide evidence that they were recruiting younger staff and allowing them to move up the employment ladder. Lady Hale, giving the lead judgment in the case, said: “Improving the recruitment of young people, in order to achieve a balanced and diverse workforce, is, in principle, a legitimate aim.
Read the full story from The Telegraph
CAMBRIDGE ACADEMICS APPROVE COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AGE
16 May 2012
Cambridge University has introduced an Employer Justified Retirement Age of 67 for academics according to People Management to promote “intergenerational fairness” and enable career progression, PM has learned.
The move, which was prompted by the abolition of the default retirement age last October , will not apply to any non-academic staff employed by the organisation.
Indi Seehra, HR director at the university, told PM: “Introducing the EJRA for academics will support intergenerational fairness. It will allow our academics to progress through the promotional stages in the course of their career and help to create a balanced distribution of ages.”
To read the full story click here.
NEST (National Employment Savings Trust)
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMOVE NEST RESTRICTIONS
15 March 2012
Further to our reports in January that the government were considering scrapping NEST restrictions, another report has been published recommending as a matter of urgency that the cap on savings and the ban on transfers be lifted. The Work and Pensions Select Committee have today published a report on Automatic enrolment in workplace pensions which recommends that, if state aid rules allow, the government should remove the following restrictions on NEST as a matter of urgency: The cap on the annual contributions an individual can make to a NEST scheme. The Committee believes that this cap will result in severe complexity for businesses, as it would mean that employers with higher-paid employees could not use NEST as their single pension scheme. The ban on individuals transferring existing pension pots into NEST. The Committee believes that this will be disruptive both for individuals who would like to consolidate separate pension pots into their NEST scheme, as well as for employers who would like to operate a single occupational pension scheme.
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 259 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker