Quality | 2009.09.25
Retirement age challenge rejected
Employers can still force workers to retire at 65 following high court ruling
Employers will still be able to force workers to retire at 65 after a high court judge today turned down campaigners\' attempts to have the UK\'s default retirement age (DRA) scrapped.
Mr Justice Blake said the rule, introduced in October 2006 as part of age discrimination laws, did not breach EU regulations and that it was "legitimate and proportionate" for the government to bring it in.
However, he said he did not believe that 65 would have been chosen as the default age had it been set today, and that he may have ruled differently had the government not announced plans to bring forward a review into the default retirement age to next year.
He said the arguments for increasing the age seemed "compelling", adding: "I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a DRA after the review."
The rules allow companies and public sector employers to set a mandatory age at which staff must give up their jobs, even if they are able and willing to continue working. Not all companies choose 65, but many industries do opt for what is effectively the legal minimum. It is thought about 25,000 workers are affected each year.
The court battle was launched three years ago by the charities Age Concern and Help the Aged, who merged earlier this year. They argued that the laws breached the EU\'s Equal Treatment at Work Directive and gave employers too much leeway to justify direct discrimination on grounds of age.
Today they promised to take their fight to parliament and called on the government to scrap the law using the equality bill which is currently going through parliament.
Andrew Harrop, head of public policy at Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: "Today\'s ruling does not spell the end of our campaign to win justice for older workers – in fact, we will be stepping up our fight to get this outdated legislation off the statute book.
"Despite the judgement today, ministers still have the opportunity this side of a crucial general election to give real help to people in their 60s by outlawing forced retirement. They should amend the equality bill which is currently making its way through parliament."
Harrop said thousands of "dedicated and experienced employees" were being "arbitrarily sacked" purely on the grounds of their age.
"The need to work beyond 65 is particularly acute at a time when economic turmoil means many people have seen the value of their pensions and savings fall rapidly," he added.
Andrew Lockley of law firm Irwin Mitchell who represented the charities, said that if the government had not brought forward its review it would have lost the case.
"The judge has effectively given the government breathing space to go away and change the rules. But his comments that he cannot see how the DRA can stay at 65 will give renewed hope to thousands of workers approaching that age. Essentially, the government has been told to think again."
The Equality and Human Rights Commission called on the government to scrap the default retirement age. Legal group director, John Wadham, said: "The judge has sent out a strong signal that it is only a matter of time before the default retirement age of 65 is removed, and we will consider what action we could take next."
Anger and experience
Andrew Webster was forced to give up his work as an A-level teacher at a London school when he reached 68. He had been planning to continue in the job until 70. "I was enjoying it. It was an interesting job – challenging but possible and the students were pleasant. There were also reasons why we needed the money – I have four children and the youngest is about to go to university."
Webster said he felt angry that because he was over 65 he could be treated differently to other workers. "I don\'t see why [older workers] should be singled out and suddenly given no rights at all."
At Pimlico Plumbers, a large plumbing firm in London, more than 20% of the workforce is aged 50 or above, including one aged 103.
Charlie Mullins, managing director of the firm, said: "I\'m very keen to employ older staff: they are more experienced, responsible, efficient and they\'re usually happier too.
"They want to be at work. I think it\'s disgusting that the retirement age rules have been left in place. It\'s a clear sign of discrimination."
His 67-year-old personal assistant, Mario Rebellato, was forced to retire as a civil servant at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister two years ago, but found staying at home too boring after just one month. He said: "Charlie regards older employees as an asset, and while I can still work I have every intention of carrying on."
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/sep[...]t-age-challenge-rejected-court
