|
Since the introduction of age laws EFA members have been asking us detailed and complex questions about the regulations.
Members can view these questions by signing in below. Members sign in to download pdf Will our graduate scheme be lawful under the Regulations? We suggest that employers immediately remove any explicit age criteria (no older than 25 years) and any indirect criteria (no more than 2 years post-graduate experience.) Employers should thoroughly review the raison d'etre of any scheme, to ensure that it measurably delivers benefit to the business. When removing any age elements, employers should also review the other selection criteria and use of words as 'talent' and 'potential', to ensure that indirect discrimination does not continue or creep in. We also recommend that if employers choose to continue operating a graduate recruitment programme, that there are visible, alternative entry methods for 'atypical' graduates' and others. Employers should also consider the appropriateness and justifications for other programmes such as fast track, leadership and management development programmes. What kind of evidence will a tribunal need to convince them that we are not an ageist organisation? We suggest that employers put in place adequate HR and management information systems so that they can age profile all aspects of the workforce. We also recommend a set of core measurements which will provide a basis for analysis. These statistics might provide evidence of good practice to counter claims in the future. Employers will need to show that they have excellent records of and clear lines of responsibility and of course ensure that all managers have been trained in age diversity. Many aspects of our compensation and benefits policy have been negotiated with unions - how will collective agreements be affected? Many policies that have been negotiated in the past may be either directly or indirectly age biased - more often than not in favour of older workers. Some of these policies particularly those related to 'length of service' may or may not be easily justified under the age legislation. We suggest employers start discussions with unions and staff representatives as soon as possible to explore the implications of the Regulations. Our redundancy packages are enhanced for older staff - will this be lawful? The Government has decided to maintain the Statutory Redundancy Payments Scheme (SRPS) including age bands. As long as you operate either the statutory payment scheme or an enhanced scheme that exactly mirrors the SRPS you will be acting lawfully. However, you should note that tapering has been removed and there is a 20 year maximum on compensation. Any employers enhanced retirement scheme must use age bands as per the statutory scheme (SRPS) 18 - 21 - Half a week's pay 22 - 40 - One week's pay >41 - 1½ weeks' pay But enhanced schemes can use multiples i.e. provide a month's pay rather than a week's pay. Enhances redundancy schemes must use multiples consistent with statutory schemes i.e. 0.5/1/1.5 = 1/2/3 or 2/4/6 etc. Using different age bands, or operating a scheme related only to service, will require full objective justification because service related pay/benefit exception does not apply to termination payments. I have just convinced my boss and colleagues that employing older workers is good for business, will I be able to actively target people over 50? Be very careful. The Regulations cover workers of all ages. Don't fall into the trap of discriminating against younger workers, just because you feel that employing older workers makes good sense. The legislation will not allow you to positively discriminate in favour of one group or another. We physically test workers aged over 50 - to ensure that they are 'up to the job'. Will this be OK after 2006? Under the Regulations it will not be possible for you to continue to just test only people over 50s, unless you can justify the direct discrimination under a legitimate aim. We suggest that you introduce testing for all workers. If that would be too costly, you will need to evidence that over 50s were more likely to require protection or were at greater risk than younger workers. What will an ET regard as 'appropriate and necessary' in supporting a justification? The Government has indicated that the threshold for both direct and indirect discrimination will be high. An employer will not be able to use a general justification such as 'too costly' or 'too complex'. We suggest that rather than trying to find justifications where they may not exist, employers invest in reviewing policy and putting new practice in place now. It costs us a lot to train our staff. We can't afford to train people and see them retire within a few months. The Government recognises that employers need an adequate return on investment and has indicated that this may be a possible justification for direct discrimination. However, it should be stressed that you will have to evidence that your existing investment is being rewarded by increased retention. We suggest that you ensure measurement procedures are in place to monitor length of service after training by age. If we can't retire people, our whole system will clog up and we will risk losing our future talent. Many employers are worried about this, and the Government are aware that 'job blocking' might become an issue in some organisations. Under the Regulations you will still be able to retire people at 65 as long as you follow a retirement process outlined in law. Surely as people get older, they will get sicker, we can't afford to 'carry' all these people. There is no evidence that older workers take more sick leave than younger workers. If you are concerned about absence rates we suggest that you start monitoring them by age as soon as possible and investigating whether high absence - perhaps stress related - has a direct age link, or whether it might be linked to other management issues. |
