Age Discrimination

[Coxa_Branca]

This is part of an email responce I received after volunteering for voluntary redundancy. The company I work for, in agreement with the trade unions had requested for volunteers.

IQuote - "VR is not being offered to anyone under 50".

Correct me if I am wrong but surely this statement is in direct contravention of the Age Discrimination legislation of 2006!! The answer to my email is not "objectively justified" .

Thanks

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Coxa_Branca

This is part of an email responce I received after volunteering for voluntary redundancy. The company I work for, in agreement with the trade unions had requested for volunteers.

IQuote - "VR is not being offered to anyone under 50".

Correct me if I am wrong but surely this statement is in direct contravention of the Age Discrimination legislation of 2006!! The answer to my email is not "objectively justified" .

Thanks

I think that you need a little more information from the employer as to why this should be the case.

Sadly for you the employer is not acting in contravention to the 2006 regulations in excluding those over 50 from voluntary redundancy, providing that he is doing so for a legitimate reason. Exclusion from a particular course of action on the grounds of age is lawful subject to certain conditions. If the employer is, for example, retaining those over 50 in order to balance the range of ages and experience in those remaining, then this would be a justifiable reason to retain all personnel over a specified age, providing that the treatment is equally applied to all eligible staff. This would be objective justification.

The employer could not, for example state that 50% of those over 50 would be retained and then just pick those to be made redundant at random without using more objective criteria. He can however retain all of those over 50 in the interests of the level of experience amongst that age group being critical to the future of the business.

Of course there will also be a suspicion that the employer is retaining the older staff due to the potential costs involved in making redundant those with long service, or where the redundancy multiplier generates a greater redundancy payment to those affected. If your employer were to be careless enough to disclose this as the sole reason for his decision then you would have a case, but unfortunately where he can demonstrate sound justification on other grounds, he is acting within the law.

[Ell-enn]

As Sidewinder says, you need to get clarification from your employer as to why they wish to retain employees over 50 years of age.

When you have an answer post on here and let us know.

Kind Regards

Ell-enn

[MilkTrayMan]

Originally Posted by Coxa_Branca

IQuote - "VR is not being offered to anyone under 50".

Ahem...Notice anything Sidewinder + Ell-enn??...


...lol...

[Ell-enn]

Originally Posted by Ell-enn

As Sidewinder says, you need to get clarification from your employer as to why they wish to retain employees over 50 years of age.

ahem... notice anything MTM?????????????????????

[pt2537]

Hmmmmm *HEAD*DESK*


Why Dont people read whats written in front of them before inserting their feet into their mouths

[MilkTrayMan]

Originally Posted by Coxa_Branca

This is part of an email responce I received after volunteering for voluntary redundancy. The company I work for, in agreement with the trade unions had requested for volunteers.

IQuote - "VR is not being offered to anyone under 50".

Correct me if I am wrong but surely this statement is in direct contravention of the Age Discrimination legislation of 2006!! The answer to my email is not "objectively justified" .

Thanks

EXACTLY!!! pt2537...
The OP makes NO mention of the retention of those employees OVER 50 + seems to be concerned about being refused to be considered for Voluntary Redundancy because he/she implies that he/she is UNDER 50.

Both Sidewinder + Ell-en have failed to recognise this + are reading something in the OP's Post which is clearly NOT there.

They are answering the question about OVER 50's being retained instead...

Apologises via PM are acceptable, if it is thought too embarassing to make a public one...

[Ell-enn]

MTM - I stand corrected, and certainly have no embarrassment in saying so publicly. However, any apology I make is offered to the OP and is made of my own free will - not by demand.

Apologies to Coxa Branca, I completely mis-read the original post, perhaps because it would be more usual for an employer to retain those over 50 for skills reasons. However, you do need to ask your employer to explain their criteria for redundancy selection (they will need to be able to justify it) - when you have more information, please post here for further advice.

Kind Regards

Ell-enn

[MilkTrayMan]

Very magnanimous Ell-enn + U are to be commended for doing so...
If U require further assistance U only have to ask...


btw...My original reminder to both U + Sidewinder was purely friendly + meant to be guiding...
It was not expected that U would compound your original confusion in your attempted rebuttal of myself!

But hey-ho the world keeps turning......+ we move on, lest we completely hi-jack Coxa Branca's Thread...

[paulgmb]

Hi,

this is probably to do with being able to take your pension which you cannot legally do until age 50 and soon to rise to 55.

Regards,

Paul.

[Sidewinder]

Whoops!

Have only just read this and apologise wholeheartedly for not reading the OP's original question properly.

I will accept my punishment like a man :o

[MilkTrayMan]

No probs Sidewinder!

We are ALL here to help one another, aren't we?!...

The inaccruracy has been rectified for the benefit of the OP + that is all that we should be concerned about...