ARTICLE
30 September 2010

Age Regulations - Redundancy 'Cap' Was Legal

BB
Bird & Bird

Contributor

Bird & Bird logo

As you adapt and innovate, you'll need a firm that's hardwired to anticipate and uncover the opportunities in change.

You'll need a firm that will ask the right questions to shape the right objective. And you'll need proactive, practical, and commercially led advice on how to get there.

It's what we do and it's what makes us your go-to firm, whether you're facing disruption or creating it.

You can trust us to know your sector as well as you do, to be curious, and to connect the dots to reach solutions others don’t. And you can trust us to deliver as promised – and more.

We'll work closely with you and make things easier for you. We'll look to deliver new improved solutions and services. And we'll take on your problems as if they were our own. But more than that, we'll work as one seamless international team across our business and yours. Giving you access to a whole world of expertise.

In "Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie" the EAT confirmed, not for the first time, that the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations cannot be used to challenge differential payments awarded to employees of different ages or length of service when implementing a redundancy exercise.
United Kingdom Employment and HR
Bird & Bird are most popular:
  • within Finance and Banking topic(s)

In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie the EAT confirmed, not for the first time, that the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations cannot be used to challenge differential payments awarded to employees of different ages or length of service when implementing a redundancy exercise.

In this case, it was permissible for the employer to 'cap' sums awarded under a redundancy scheme so that no employee could recover more than they would have done if they had stayed at work until retirement age. The EAT concluded that practice was direct age discrimination, but that it could be justified as acceptable within the Regulations.

Point to Note –

  • The EAT stated that in such cases it is right for the tribunal to look at the scheme as a whole and to see how it operates overall, and that the tribunal should not focus solely on the detrimental impact that one provision (in this case, the 'cap') has on the claimant.

www.twobirds.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More