Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Age discriminationEquality, diversity and inclusion

Are age laws courting disaster?

by Michael Millar 10 Oct 2006
by Michael Millar 10 Oct 2006

A High Court challenge to the mandatory retirement age of 65 means there could be trouble ahead for the government.

After months of consultation and wranglings at the highest levels, the new age laws have already been labelled as incompatible with the EU legislation they aim to implement.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 bring into force the age-related provisions of the European Equal Treatment Directive.

But Heyday, a membership group for baby boomers (people born between 1945 and 1957), has been granted a judicial review of the regulations before the High Court, challenging the mandatory retirement age (MRA), which allows employers to force workers to retire at 65 without giving any reason.

Ailsa Ogilvie, director of Heyday, said the government was sending a stark to over-65s – that “they are not worth having in the workplace”.

“People want the choice to continue to work, but they don’t want to feel they are being given their P45 on the basis of their birth certificate,” she told Personnel Today.

Unprotective

You can see why Heyday is upset. Most people believe the age regulations are designed to protect them against discrimination in their old age. Unfortunately, they are in for a shock. For the first time, employers have a cast-iron excuse to discriminate against those aged 65 and over – and there’s nothing retirees can do about it.

This situation seems to run contrary to the EU legislation, which says “any direct or indirect discrimination based on age… should be prohibited throughout the [EU] community”.

Where the confusion arises is article six of the directive, which adds that EU member states may effectively discriminate on grounds of age if, “within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justifying a legitimate aim… and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”. Then add the fact that “the directive shall be without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages”, and the lawyers have really got something to get their teeth into.

So just what is a legitimate aim, and did the UK already have national retirement ages? And what are the chances the government has mucked it all up?

The Department for Trade and Industry would only say that “the government is confident that the [age] regulations implement the directive correctly”, and points out the MRA will be reviewed in 2011 anyway.

However, the CBI was more than happy to elaborate. Richard Wainer, principal policy officer at the employers’ group, which lobbied hard for a retirement age, said the MRA would create better workplace relations.

“It will encourage dialogue between employers and employees that will lead to a more fruitful and consensual discussion over retirement,” he said. “Abolition [of the MRA] could lead to conflict as companies try to manage people out.”

The CBI believes that having the MRA will help aid workforce planning, adding weight to its assertion that a default retirement age is a legitimate aim. It also argues that the state retirement age already operates as a default retirement age, which the EU directive explicitly recognises as a bona fide reason to discriminate.

Challenged

It’s difficult to predict how the High Court will approach this matter. A judicial review has only ever once successfully forced the government to change a law. That was back in 1999, when it was successfully argued that a two-year qualification period for a claim for unfair dismissal had an adverse impact on women.

Jane Amphlett, a partner at law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said the courts would be reluctant to declare the government acted illegally, as it would “raise arguments over whether the judiciary is more powerful than the government”.

In this case, the High Court does not seem too perturbed – it has taken the unusual step of granting Heyday a ‘rolled-up’ hearing, which means that a judge will consider the application for the case to proceed in an oral hearing, which, if given the green light, will lead straight into a full trial. Usually, judicial reviews have to wait six months to be heard.

However, as Heyday’s solicitor Andrew Lockley points out, the group is not challenging the whole of the regulations, but just one part, which would limit the impact of any constitutional issues.

Ashley Norman, employment partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, said the whole question should be sent back from whence it came.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if this was referred up to the European Court of Justice – that’s the usual route for employment decisions to be challenged,” he said.

If that comes to pass, then employers will be in for the long haul. In the meantime, businesses might have come to recognise that young employees are harder to find, and they might not have much choice when it comes to keeping older workers on the payroll.

What’s the problem?



  • Heyday claims having a mandatory retirement age in the new age regulations is contrary to the European Equal Treatment Framework Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC).

  • It is challenging articles three and 30 of the UK law, which cover discrimination on grounds of age and the default retirement age respectively.

What is a judicial review?

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Judicial reviews are the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or other public body if it is claimed the law or act is itself illegal. To bring a judicial review, you must show you have ‘sufficient interest’ in the decision.

For more on retirement, see legal dilemma

Michael Millar

previous post
Manufacturing: what can be done to save the manufacturing sector in the UK
next post
BT focuses on mental health as way of boosting productivity

You may also like

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Why fighting the DEI backlash is about PR...

9 May 2025

So what does the election of a new...

9 May 2025

Rethinking talent: Who was never considered in the...

7 May 2025

Reform UK councils’ staff face WFH ban

6 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+