The CJEU normally, but not always, follows the opinion of the Advocate-General.
Permanent health insurance benefits and age discrimination
2 October 2013
Was stopping Permanent Health Insurance (PHI) benefits once an employee turned 55, age discrimination?
Yes, says an employment tribunal in Whitham v Capita Insurance Services .
Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin has published the details.
Mr Witham had been in receipt of benefits from Capita under a PHI scheme arranged between Capita and an insurance provider. The payments stopped when he turned 55.
He had been denied the opportunity to join a more favourable PHI scheme arranged in 2002 which would have entitled him to receive PHI payments until he turned 65. The insurance company were not prepared to indemnify Capita in respect of PHI payments if the employee was not "actively at work" when applying to join. Mr Witham was then ill and in receipt of benefits under the original PHI scheme and therefore not eligible for the new scheme. It was held by the employment tribunal that Capita had directly discriminated against Mr Witham because of age. Nor could this be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The employer stated that its legitimate aim was to admit as many employees into its pension and PHI schemes as possible within the constraints of the insurance company's conditions. But the tribunal did not accept that the employer had this as an aim, as the offer of PHI membership was selective; nor was stopping the PHI payment an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that purported aim. By ceasing to cover Mr Witham the employer had reduced the number of employees within the PHI scheme. This was hardly promoting its stated objective; and the employer's budgetary considerations in funding the PHI scheme were not to be taken into account. Further, there was indirect age discrimination because the employer applied a provision, criterion or practice (the "actively at work" criterion) which put employees over a certain age at a particular disadvantage. For the same reason as applied in the direct discrimination claim, this also could not be justified. Finally, on the facts of the case, the employment tribunal decided that Mr Witham had a contractual right to receive his PHI payments until the age of 65 because an earlier purported variation of employment terms and the policy entitlement was ineffective.
TUPE: service provision changeover
7 October 2013
Can work which was anticipated and regularly provided, but not contractually guaranteed, be part of a service provision change?
Yes, says the EAT, in Lorne Stewart plc v Hyde & Ors .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin summarises the case:
Carillion provided largely routine services to Cornwall County Council under a framework agreement, repairing and installing central heating and boilers. Alongside this, the Council could offer further higher value work, but were not obliged to do so and Carillion were not obliged to accept. In practice, Carillion did all of this work. Lorne Stewart took over the
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 116 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker