EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996 ss.109(1)(a) and 156(1)(a)

latest news


NOTES.

  • ERA 1996 s.109 is entitled "Upper age limit".
  • ERA 1996 s.156 is entitled "Upper age limit".

    THIS NOTE IS RETAINED FOR HISTORIC PURPOSES ONLY
    (and for any ongoing unfair dismissal and/or redundancy cases where the effective date of termination (''edt'') or the relevant date respectively was before 1st October 2006)

    The introduction on 1st October 2006 of anti-age discrimination laws in the form of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1031 has meant that the concept of "normal retiring age" is now of historic interest only, save where the effective date of termination (''edt'') or relevant date was before 1st October 2006 - see notes at Age discrimination/2006 regulations/an overview and outline and/or Unfair dismissal/age limits and/or Redundancy/age limits ).

    BASIC POSITION
    (historical - as at Sept2004)

    Dismissal must take place before "normal retiring age" if a person is to have a claim for unfair dismissal compensation or redundancy pay (see UNFAIR DISMISSAL/age limits/upper limit and REDUNDANCY/age limits/upper limit ).

    More precisely, if the person had reached his normal retiring age on or before the effective date of termination (''edt''), his dismissal cannot be unfair dismissal.

    Similar rules apply in relation to entitlement to statutory redundancy pay. However, for statutory redundancy pay purposes there is a top limit of age 65 (note: an argument that this top limit is unlawful under EC sex discrimination rules was rejected by the Court of Appeal in September 2004 - see notes on Rutherford v DTI (Secy of State) CA 2004 EWCA (Civ) 1186,).

    Note that retirement age need not be the same as pension age. They often happen to be the same, but there is no legal reason why they should be (see SEX DISCRIMINATION/retirement age for notes on equal treatment).

    Where members of a pension scheme are contractually entitled to retire before their normal retiring age it is unlawful for the pension fund trustees to calculate short service benefits on the basis that scheme members all have the same normal retirement age. This is because by law short service benefit must be computed on the same basis as long service benefit (see Pension Schemes Act 1993 and Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd v. Simpson and ors ChD 2004 EWHC 935 (ChD), reported at 2004], ICR 1426).

    In December 2004 the government announced proposals for a default retirement age of 65. These are implemented by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 which are in force from 1st October 2006 (see Age discrimination/2006 regulations ). Under the 2006 regulations, it will be illegal for employers to set a retirement age lower than 65 save in those (probably rare) cases where this can be justified as "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" (see Age Regs 2006 reg 3(1)). Employers will have a legal obligation to consider requests to work after retirement whether it is 65 or a justified lower age (see 2004/12/14 - DTI statement on age discrimination in the House of Commons, Hansard col 127WS). The Secretary of State then said:-

    go to next updated reference in this note.

    See also notes at Age discrimination and/or SEX DISCRIMINATION/retirement age .


    FINISH>
    updated Sept2004