Retirement? What Retirement?

I think we are all slowly coming to realise that with the rising costs of living, increase in university fees and the like, we’ll all be needing to work longer in the future. Also, with improving health and people living longer, many want to work and not retire. With the recent removal of the default retirement age of 65, it’s got to be a good thing that employees will be able to choose to work beyond 65 if they wish to. 


A recent survey of employers shows this. It indicates that the majority of employers are doing without a default retirement age. The survey of senior HR professionals in the UK, reveals, among other things, that only 3% of employers intend to keep a specific retirement age, 86% of employers are letting employees over the age of 65 continue in the same role and nearly half of employers are considering flexible working arrangements for over 65s. 

That sounds positive, but on the other hand, only 11% of employers recognise the potential benefit of retaining experienced employees more easily.
What it does show is a shift in ‘mind set’ which means older employees will find it easier to remain working for their employer well after they reach 65.

- David Sorensen, Partner

For further information on Employment Rights, please visit our website or call 0113 245 0733 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team. 

EAT rules students should be allowed to see their teacher's face

The recent news that France has imposed the first Niqab fines on 2 French Muslim women who continue to wear the full-face veil despite the new law banning it, prompts us to think about the position in relation to the manifestation of religious belief in the UK.

The law appears reasonably well settled and has been consistently interpreted, but many of the well reported cases have been appealed to as high as the European Court of Justice: judgment in the case of Jivraj v Hashwani2011 UKSC 40 has been given this month by the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding the hysterical approach adopted by the media, at large the decisions this far taken in the UK have been in line with common sense.

Significantly, but not widely reported, AishahAzmi, the British Muslim teacher who refused to remove her veil in a primary school when male colleagues were present, was told by the EAT to let her students see her face; an approach most would think in line with common sense – students should be able to see their teachers face, it was argued, and our courts have not disagreed.  Certainly there is no evidence here of political correctness gone mad (much though that is what the media would prefer to report).

It is right that a proportionate response should be taken when addressing needs in the workplace, but leaving people free in their own time to do as they wish, as long as they are not harming anyone, seems to us to be far more satisfactory in today’s multicultural society than imposing fines on women. 

- Anna Power, Associate

http://tinyurl.com/3vxoclw

Riding Out The Storm Together?

RIDING OUT THE STORM TOGETHER? MORE LIKE TRAMPLING OVER EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS WITH A CARTHORSE

So here it is, the CONdem Government shows its true view of the average working person today by its blatant attempt to dilute workers’ rights in 2 major ways:

1. By bringing in court fees for Employment Tribunal cases meaning that in a typical case, it will cost a person £1,250 to issue Tribunal proceedings and have a hearing.

Now, bearing in mind the most common award for unfair dismissal is in the region of £4,500, a person who has just been dismissed is supposed from April 2013 to fork out £1,250 to be able to get justice. This really shows that access to justice for those on average or low wages is becoming a thing of the past, with only the rich (with savings...remember those?) able to afford to get justice from the Tribunal system. How many employees, who have been sacked unfairly, with all the stress of paying the rent or the mortgage, feeding the family and so on, will be able to stump up £1,250 within 3 months of being dismissed (because the three month time limit still applies)? Well, the CONdem Government’s own stats predict that at least 2,000 extra workers will be put off from bringing such a claim – I think it will in fact be many more.  Fees will be even higher for cases where damages of more than £30,000 are sought, as is common in claims of discrimination.

2. They also plan to extend from April 2012 the period of qualifying service to gain protection from general unfair dismissal from one year to two years in order to make the workplace more ‘flexible’ – flexible of course only for the employer not the employee, who faces an extra year of uncertain employment, during which he or she may be able to be sacked unfairly at any time.

This shows what the CONdem Government’s ’business-friendly’ approach really means: weakening workers’ rights and making it harder for an average person to get justice against an employer which acts unlawfully or unfairly.

-        David Sorensen, Partner

For further information, please contact our Employment Rights team on 0113 245 0733.