Request Call Back

Default retirement age to be abolished

Meredith Hurst Thursday, January 13, 2011

The Government has today confirmed that the long anticipated abolition of the default retirement age of 65 is to become reality with effect from 1 October 2011.  The changes will be phased in from April. At the moment, employers can terminate employment at 65 without penalty.  Provided the employer follows a set procedure it can avoid unfair dismissal claims and age discrimination claims.  The government's move to abolish the default retirement age ignores the views of employers...

Read More 0

Unfair dismissal rights set to change

Meredith Hurst Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Employees can only bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they have the necessary period of continuous employment at the date of termination. In most cases of unfair dismissal, the necessary period of service is one year.  click here for more information The date of termination is either the date on which notice expires (even if the employee is on garden leave) or, if the employment terminates immediately, then the date on which that termination takes effect is the date on which the...

Read More 0

Age Related Notice Periods Discriminatory

Meredith Hurst Wednesday, January 27, 2010

ECJ finds age-related notice periods age discriminatory   In Kucukdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co the ECJ held that a German law providing that employment before the age of 25 is disregarded when calculating service-related notice periods breached the EU Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78). The Court also held that the prohibition on age discrimination in the Directive is a specific application of a general principle of European Union law so that, even in a dispute between two...

Read More 0

ECJ Rules on Pregnant Worker's Pay

Meredith Hurst Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The Advocate General has given his opinion in the case of Parviainen v Finnair Oyj (C-471/08), recommending that the European Court of Justice hold that the EU Pregnant Workers Directive (No.92/85) does not require an employer to pay a pregnant worker, who is temporarily transferred to a different job to prevent her being exposed to health risks, the average salary that she earned prior to the transfer. Under Article 11, the employer is required to provide her with an adequate allowance, which...

Read More 0

Self employed or employee?

Meredith Hurst Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Court of Appeal decision on sham employment terms   In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and ors the Court of Appeal has held that a group of car valets employed under terms and conditions that professed them to be self-employed were, in reality, employees. In so doing, the Court has overturned the EAT's decision and brought the law on sham terms in the employment context into line with the other recent Court of Appeal judgment in Firthglow Ltd (t/a Protectacoat) v Szilagyi. The case concerned a...

Read More 0