Sudden change of policy re: retirement PLEASE ADVISE!

Beldarin

Hi all,
My father in law, who turned 65 last week, was told on friday that the company he's been with for over 5 years has implemented a new policy to make 65 mandatory retirement age, and has been given his notice. This company has never had this policy in the past, and given that 2 employees have turned 65 very recently, this seems a very convienient time to make changes. I'm looking into this, urgently, from age-equality, unfair dismissal angles, but would really appreciate any info the boards may hold. He has not signed a contract (they tried to bring one in a few years back, but it was a ridiculous document outlining all the company's terms & conditions, but NO employee rights, rates of pay, hours etc, so he didn't sign it) so there is no company stated retirment age. He was given no written notice either.
Q: Does this qualify as discrimination/ unfair dismissal , & if so what rights?

Sleipnir

Well they can't implement a change in policy unless the staff agree to it. **EDIT** The Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 and 2001 provide that an employer is obliged to provide an employee with a written statement of terms of employment within the first two months of the commencement of employment.
The statement of terms must include the following information:

The full name of employer and employee
The address of the employer
The place of work
The title of job or nature of work
The date the employment started
If the contract is temporary, the expected duration of the contract
If the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the details
The rate of pay or method of calculation of pay
The pay reference period for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000
*Pay intervals
*Hours of work
*Details of paid leave
*Sick pay and pension (if any)
*Period of notice to be given by employer or employee
*Details of any collective agreements that may affect the employee’s terms of employment


I would say that in the absence of a mandatory retirement age, there is no set limit. To then introduce a limit is a change to the contract of employment.

If the company think that because there is no written contract of employment, there is no contract of employment at all, they're quite mistaken.

Plus the fact that they've introduced this after your father in law has turned 65 stinks of discrimination.

If several people are facing this, they should all meet and discuss it together. Also go to a citizen's advice bureau and possibly a solicitor who specializes in employment law.

Beldarin

Thanks Sleipnir, plenty of info there

I've been browsing around, but its tricky getting specifics, especially over the weekend

Sleipnir

http://www.citizensinformation.ie is a good place to start.

eamon234

http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/

Contact them - you need professional advice here.

Sleipnir

eamon234 wrote: »

http://www.employmentrights.ie/en/

Contact them - you need professional advice here.

+1. Agreed.

Beldarin

seems to be the next logical step alright
thanks guys

yet another example of employers screwing over their employees to make money- if they get away with this, sacking senior guys, they can hire on guys who'll work for way less money

Beldarin

This issue looks like it's been resolved.
when the area manager found out what had happened, he stepped in and said no way was this policy change going ahead, turns out someone thought they'd had a bright idea, and was swiftly informed otherwise.
yey

dh0661

Glad to hear that - .

doolox

After seeing Richard Attenborough on the telly last night at 82 and still going strong I would have thought that letting people go at 65 is a waste.
However, as the recession bites and young people can't get jobs you will find more "bright sparks" advocatiing a return to mandatory retirement ( ie. enforced poverty) at 65.
Several reasons exist why this can't be done.
Pensions are severly depleted. All the investments which were supposed to support people in their 60's and 70's are turning sour.
People are living longer so their retirements need to be put off for longer unless they pay in more pension money to compensate.
Peoples lifestyles have changed, they need a car now, they live alone in their houses now without wage-earning children to contribute to running the household, they have more recourse to foreign travel than heretofore and are healthier at the cost of having to pay health professionals more for it.
Lets hope that society in general does not turn on its old people and turf them out of their jobs to make way for younger people.