Good news it is being challenged - check out what Heyday are up to

http://www.heyday.org.uk/wps/portal/content/home/community/?WCM_GLOBAL_C
ONTEXT=/content/home/community/MRA+Campaign+-+New&WCM_DOC_ID=com.ibm.wor
kplace.wcm.api.WCM_Content/MRA%20Campaign%20-%20New/e5a2c4449ae6fe4	


Kind regards

Amber



Amber Musgrave
trinitydevelopment 
Eaga House, Archbold Terrace, Jesmond.
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 1DB
* 0191 350 6534
* 07730 635272
7  0191 2473869
*[log in to unmask]
*  www.trinitydevelopment.co.uk
forum: http://free.phpbb-host.org/trinitydevelopment/
North East Equality Award Winners June 2005
 

-----Original Message-----
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Appleton
Sent: 11 July 2006 11:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Age legislation

Thanks, Liz.  I'm afraid I hadn't appreciated quite how weak 
the legislation is in relation to retirement.  But is there 
not an argument for saying that employers who follow best 
practice will work on the assumption that an employee who 
wants to stay on past 65 will be allowed to do so unless 
there are specific reasons why this is not appropriate (the 
reasons why this is best practice being those that you 
articulated about continuity of service, preserving skills 
and knowledge, etc)?  As universities are, in general, well 
known as employers who want to apply best practice in HR 
matters, they will therefore apply that principle even 
though the law does not require it (?)

All the best,

Jon

Liz Sutherland wrote:

> Hello Jon
> 
> There are lots of issues but unfortunately, in law, few rights. 
> 
> IF an employer does not want to keep someone who is over either the
> default retirement age or the (if necessary,objectively justified)
> organisation's retirement age, then as long as the employer follows
the
> correct procedures under the Employment Equality Age Regs and other
> employment rights laws then the employee has no right in law to expect
> to be kept on. He or she also has no right to being given any reason
as
> to why the employer has declined the request.
> 
> It is in this context that we are advising that it would be good
> practice (in terms of developing a positive working environment ;
making
> best use of existing staff skills and expertise; promoting good staff
> relations; clear communication with staff etc)  for organisations to
> develop clearly articulated policies in this area of the kind outlined
> yesterday.
> 
> Until the default retirement age position that has been adopted by the
> UK government is challenged in law ( and I do think it will be soon)
> there remains a paradox at the heart of this new legislation. On the
one
> hand it aims to outlaw age discrimination but on the other, in
practice
> it allows it - a default retirement age of 65 is direct discrimination
> on the grounds of age.
> 
> Good to hear from you. Myself and my colleague Shelly are in the same
> position as everyone else on age, and learning as we go along what
this
> legislation might actually mean in practice, so we would be very happy
> to continue engaging in this debate and to hear from others what they
> think on these issues, both off and on line.
> 
> Best wishes
> Liz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon Appleton
> Sent: 10 July 2006 19:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Age legislation
> 
> Have I missed something?  If a person wants to work beyond 
> the arbitrary age of 65, shouldn't the presumption be that 
> they should be able to unless there are clear reasons why 
> not?  Shouldn't the ECU guidance be focussed on setting out 
> the (relatively few) circumstances in which an employer 
> would be justified in refusing to allow them to do so?
> 
> Jon
> Oxford Brookes
> 
> Liz Sutherland wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Dorcas and colleagues
>>
>>In the Update on the Age Discrimination Regulations which I am
> 
> currently
> 
>>drafting, the advice I have written is that institutions 'need to
>>develop in consultation with their staff representatives a number of
>>clearly articulated business-related grounds for saying yes to such
>>requests. This would be in keeping with guidance from ACAS and ECU'.
>>
>>These grounds could include for example difficulties in finding
> 
> someone
> 
>>with the same or similar skills; likely impact on the quality of work
> 
> in
> 
>>the department/functional area; ability of the institution to respond
> 
> to
> 
>>student or other client needs; present work commitments and impact of
>>loss of staff from key ongoing projects; potential for contributing to
>>the mentoring and development of colleagues...
>>
>>I am sure there are many other grounds that all of you will be able to
>>think of in your own contexts. Shelly (my new colleague) and I are
>>actually really interested in hearing from anyone in the sector on
> 
> what
> 
>>their policies on this matter are going to be....so please do let us
>>know if you have other grounds I have not listed above and/or other
>>thoughts on this
>>
>>With good wishes
>>Liz 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dorcas Phelps
>>Sent: 03 July 2006 15:54
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Age legislation
>>
>>Dear colleagues
>>
>>With regards to the new age legislation, I would be very interested to
>>hear whether any other institutions have drawn up a 
>>procedure for employees to request to continue working beyond normal
>>retirement age and also what guidelines they will be 
>>using to ensure consistency of decision making.
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>
>>Dorcas
>>
> 
> 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager at Trinity Development immediately on +44 (0)191 350 6538 quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete it from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.