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.
Private employers hiring public sector workers under TUPE need to be aware of potential liability when implementing redundancies.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to retirement.