Retirement

New and updated

  • Transfer of undertakings: Early retirement pension paid on redundancy dismissal not excluded by TUPE

    Date:
    1 August 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    Early retirement and enhanced benefits paid on dismissal for redundancy to employees who have reached a certain age are not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" within the meaning of article 3(4) of the EC Business Transfers Directive, even if those benefits were calculated by reference to the rules for calculating normal pension benefits, holds the European Court of Justice in Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd.

  • Early retirement benefits not affected by a transfer

    Date:
    9 July 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    Private employers hiring public sector workers under TUPE need to be aware of potential liability when implementing redundancies.

  • Early retirement rights protected under TUPE

    Date:
    2 July 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    Private sector employers could be liable for the early retirement pension benefits of staff transferred from the public sector following a ruling by the European Court of Justice.

  • ECJ rules on transfer of early retirement benefits

    Date:
    1 July 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    The question of whether an employee may retain pension rights when an undertaking is transferred has caused great controversy in recent years, and has resulted in more than one referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

  • ECJ: Ruling on transfer of early retirement benefits

    Date:
    1 July 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    In case C-164/00 Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on 4 June 2002 that the 1977 business transfers Directive does not exclude the transfer of early retirement benefits.

  • ECJ retirement bombshell in the hands of the High Court

    Date:
    1 July 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    A ruling by the European Court of Justice that an early retirement pension is not an 'old age benefit' could have far reaching consequences if upheld by the High Court

  • ECJ delivers Tupe early retirement benefits shock

    Date:
    20 June 2002
    Type:
    Law reports

    Once in a while there is a legal case that turns the world upside down, writes John McMullen. Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe MacFarlane Ltd (ECJ - Case C-164/00) is such a case. It concerns the current exclusion in Regulation 7 of Tupe in respect of benefits that transfer under Regulation 5. Regulation 7 of Tupe excludes rights under or in connection with an occupational pension scheme in so far as they relate to old age, invalidity or survivor's benefits.

  • Sex discrimination: Discriminatory retirement policy subjected women to detriment

    Date:
    1 May 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    An employer that operated a policy under which women had to retire at 60 but men could work until 65 directly discriminated against women by subjecting them to a detriment, holds the EAT in Newnham and others v Transco plc.

  • Exclusions and qualifications: Tribunal erred in deciding whether or not employee was too old

    Date:
    1 October 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Dormers Wells Infant School v Gill, the EAT holds that a representation made to an employee that he would remain in employment until his partner retired, and/or the fact that other employees worked beyond the age of 65, was not sufficient to found an employment tribunal's jurisdiction to hear his complaint of unfair dismissal.

  • Absence scheme failed to take account of disability

    Date:
    1 June 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    An asthmatic who chose to take early retirement rather than be dismissed because of his asthma-related absence record, was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of disability, holds a Bristol employment tribunal (Chair: C M Christensen) in Kerrigan v Rover Group Ltd.