Categories:Employment,UK

Heyday: the end of the beginning

  • Print
  • Comments (9)

Readers' comments (9)

  • Heyday

    This is a set back, but it is not a disaster. Not having the Advocate General’s support for our case is disappointing for us and for the millions of older workers in the UK.

    The Advocate General's opinion confirms that the EU Directive requires age discrimination to be justified. It’s now up to the UK government to prove to the High Court that their social and employment policies are important enough to justify kicking people out of work at 65. Until then, older workers face more uncertainty about their right to work.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Heyday reaction

    We are challenging this law because it is costing good workers their jobs. If the European Court confirms this opinion, the case would then have to go back to the High Court in London for a final decision. We hope the High Court would not want to remove the choice for people to work in later life if they wish to or if they need to.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • heyday case

    Why have AGE CONCERN had to take up this case for the workers rights to stay on and work past 65, what happened to the trade unions of the public sector workers, have they no voice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Due Consideration

    As medical science improves and life expectancy increases, enforced retirement to relative poverty on state benefit will eventually prove too heavy an economic and policital burden. In the meantime, the view of the AG, and probably the ECJ in due course, will need to be challenged at a domestic level in regard to the term 'consideration' (within the Appeal procedure set out in the Regulations).

    Without interpretation, this term has no tested legal meaning and simply creates an appeal system, which at best degrades the retiring employee forced to plead for their job and at worst is potentially in breach of current Human Rights.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Heyday

    The view which is being put forward here is that age discrimination is less serious than race or sex discrimination and the Government has largely got it right in terms of European law. Furthermore, it leaves the possibility for "justifying" age discrimination in any case wide open.

    However, it is far from certain at this point whether this opinion will be followed by the European Court of Justice. There is clearly a jurisprudential fight within the Court of Justice on the nature of age discrimination. In a recent age discrimination case from Spain [Palacios] the ECJ did not follow the entire opinion of the Advocate General.

    Furthermore, the case now has to return to the High Court where the Government still have to win the main case and justify forcible retirement at 65 and over as a legitimate aim.
    “The advice for employers at this point therefore remains the same: proceed with caution.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Heyday

    The general gist of the Advocate General’s opinion is that the framework Directive offers Member States some freedom to decide what potential age discrimination is justifiable. In principle, the so-called default retirement age of 65 would appear to be acceptable, although the onus will be on the UK Government to demonstrate that the means justify the ends.
    It is important to bear in mind that the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding on the ECJ. So we await further developments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • HEYDAY CASE

    i wonder if we could have a responce from the TRADE UNIONS do they support what HEYDAY is trying to achieve, or do they take the view that the GOVERMENT has it right, and that thier members should roll over at 65 and retire, in the hope that it makes work for the youger people, most LOCAL AUTHORITIES have no apprentice schemes, so is it just a cliche to say it will give the jobs to so called younger people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Heyday case

    Just a comment on the statement provided by anonymous, I, as a trade union representative, will support the wishes of any of our members where possible and in fact I am scouring through articles such as these in order to support a member who wishes to stay on after retirement age, it looks as though we are fighting a losing battle as it is not compenstion we are after but the members right to work until he no longer enjoys his work. Many good workers are being forced to retire due to cost cutting and nothing else due to loopholes such as these.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Retirement

    The Government, probably BERR, is due to review the retirment age by 2011, and yet one can find no up-to-date details of any ongoing consultation. This is in adddition to the awaited Heyday ECJ judgment and that of the High Court. Meanwhile academics have started a campaign see our web-page www.ukace.info. Views welcome.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (9)