Crosswords1 min ago
Being over 60 yrs of age and being pushed out of work?
Our workplace was bought by our current boss around 3 or 4 years ago.
when my boss and her cousins initially took over they 'offered' two long term members of staff redundacy packages more or less because they didn't want to employ them.
I have now heard that my boss is now intending to do something similar to two other older members of our staff who have both worked at our pharmacy for around 20 yrs and are both over 60 .
I don't know if it's an ageist thing but when my boss and her cousins took over they tried to make these two members of staff agree to a retirement age of 60 but they got a union involved and 100% refused to this as it would've forced them both to retire just a yr or two after this.
so now I'm wondering how she's going to tackle this now. can she offer them a redundacy pay off for no particular reason and at any time?...do they have any rights to just refuse the offer and to carry on working?...
when my boss and her cousins initially took over they 'offered' two long term members of staff redundacy packages more or less because they didn't want to employ them.
I have now heard that my boss is now intending to do something similar to two other older members of our staff who have both worked at our pharmacy for around 20 yrs and are both over 60 .
I don't know if it's an ageist thing but when my boss and her cousins took over they tried to make these two members of staff agree to a retirement age of 60 but they got a union involved and 100% refused to this as it would've forced them both to retire just a yr or two after this.
so now I'm wondering how she's going to tackle this now. can she offer them a redundacy pay off for no particular reason and at any time?...do they have any rights to just refuse the offer and to carry on working?...
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jenarry. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The only reason that someone can be made redundant is if there is no job for them to do. For example, when newspapers went over to desktop publishing (rather than 'hot metal) the typesetters could be made redundant as the publishers no longer required people to do that job.
Similarly, if a company has to 'downsize' (through economic pressures) they might find that they now only need to employ 4 pharmacy assistants (for example), rather than 6. However that company couldn't get rid of 2 staff on the pretence of 'redundancy' if they immediately engaged two new staff to take over their old jobs. (That's 'unfair dismissal', not 'redundancy').
For far more information, start here:
http://www.direct.gov.../Redundancy/index.htm
Chris
Similarly, if a company has to 'downsize' (through economic pressures) they might find that they now only need to employ 4 pharmacy assistants (for example), rather than 6. However that company couldn't get rid of 2 staff on the pretence of 'redundancy' if they immediately engaged two new staff to take over their old jobs. (That's 'unfair dismissal', not 'redundancy').
For far more information, start here:
http://www.direct.gov.../Redundancy/index.htm
Chris
Further the 'default' retirement ages (originally 60 for women, but rising in line with the state pension age, and 65 for men) have been abolished for anyone who was not told before 6th April that they'd have to retire when they reached the relevant age.
Prior to the recent change in the law, employers could simply throw out employees when they reached the state pension age, on the grounds that they'd retired. The employees could not claim for 'unfair dismissal' because the right to do so was terminated upon reaching state pension age.
However now (unless the employer can prove to an Employment Tribunal that there is a valid reason for forcing an employee to retire) nobody can be forced to retire at any specific age (and the right to claim for 'unfair dismissal' lasts for life).
http://www.direct.gov...ionAtWork/DG_10026429
Chris
Prior to the recent change in the law, employers could simply throw out employees when they reached the state pension age, on the grounds that they'd retired. The employees could not claim for 'unfair dismissal' because the right to do so was terminated upon reaching state pension age.
However now (unless the employer can prove to an Employment Tribunal that there is a valid reason for forcing an employee to retire) nobody can be forced to retire at any specific age (and the right to claim for 'unfair dismissal' lasts for life).
http://www.direct.gov...ionAtWork/DG_10026429
Chris
Thanks Chris. we have just moved into a brand new pharmacy building (which has obviously cost a lot to build although they keep telling us the business isn't earning enough money so there's been no pay rises for us for ages!!! )
This building is in a view to increase trade and warrants a need for more staff not less so I don't think our employer's could pull off that excuse. i will have a good read of your link. thanks again.
This building is in a view to increase trade and warrants a need for more staff not less so I don't think our employer's could pull off that excuse. i will have a good read of your link. thanks again.
....and to add to what Chris has said, they would need to consult all of the people in the same role before determining which ones are to be made redundant. For example they should offer voluntary first in case there's someone who'd accept that and then the selection process can begin. This is where you hear of people having to apply for their own jobs as the company have to pick say 3 from 5. Selecting those to go on the grounds of age would be discriminatory.
There are some good answers here. Buenchico's link will help.
Maybe they should find out what the terms of the redundancy package are. For many people aged 60+ a redundancy package is a godsend, particularly if the package is more generous than the statutory one. In a generous scheme someone with 20 years service may get between 40 and 80 weeks pay, and the first £30000 would be tax free. They could also get a pension quote on retiring early.
If you doubt the employer really needs to make cut staff numbers can I ask what you think the employer's motive might be? The employer will have to pay redundancy so in the short term it's an expensve move. It's a lot cheaper for them to get rid of employees with much shorter service.
If they do declare redundancies there should be a fair selection process.
Maybe they should find out what the terms of the redundancy package are. For many people aged 60+ a redundancy package is a godsend, particularly if the package is more generous than the statutory one. In a generous scheme someone with 20 years service may get between 40 and 80 weeks pay, and the first £30000 would be tax free. They could also get a pension quote on retiring early.
If you doubt the employer really needs to make cut staff numbers can I ask what you think the employer's motive might be? The employer will have to pay redundancy so in the short term it's an expensve move. It's a lot cheaper for them to get rid of employees with much shorter service.
If they do declare redundancies there should be a fair selection process.
Thats true Factor30. It may be a good thing for them as they'll be quids in with money coming to them just for finishing the job a little earlier than they intend.
I know one of them hasn't broadcasted it but she is intending to finish early next year.
I'm not entirely sure of the motives but i can't help remembering the wrangle we had when they first took over when they wanted to make the retirement age 60 in our contracts which was going to effect these 2 members of staff in the short term and they only did a u-turn when a union became involved. i think simple ageism is in play here. :O(
I know one of them hasn't broadcasted it but she is intending to finish early next year.
I'm not entirely sure of the motives but i can't help remembering the wrangle we had when they first took over when they wanted to make the retirement age 60 in our contracts which was going to effect these 2 members of staff in the short term and they only did a u-turn when a union became involved. i think simple ageism is in play here. :O(
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.