Damn, got all excited when I saw the subject line, but alas, I won't get to retire early, if ever...
RE: CWCAB - Retirement Age
Inbox X
Reply | Barrett, Jon to Helen, Val, me, michaelb
show details 3:10 PM (7 hours ago)
Helen
Thank you very much for this very helpful advice.
Michael – you can consider the trustee board fully supportive and crack on but taking Helen’s advice and ensuring we are covered on all bases (which I am sure we are).
Please do check anything with Helen as will I moving forward,
Thanks,
Jon
From: Simpson, Helen [mailto:Helen.Simpson@citizensadvice.org.uk]
Sent: 01 February 2010 15:57
To: Barrett, Jon
Cc: Murphy, Val
Subject: FW: CWCAB - Retirement Age
Hi Jon
Val just asked me to have a quick look and this and get back to you directly if I had any comments.
Obviously I'm not fully aware of the whole background, and I understand you do get legal advice from Abbey Legal, but I just wanted to raise a couple of questions in case you haven't covered it with them.
Were the statutory retirement procedures followed before these 2 people reached 65? If not then you should still be using the outline of the procedures to retire them now i.e. giving them at least 6 months notice of retirement, allowing them to request to stay on, having a meeting and then retiring them. I couldn't tell from your email whether you were intending to do this, but was a bit concerned that if you were going to persuade people to resign rather than retire you could risk unfair dismissal claims. If you call it retirement but you haven't actually followed the statutory retirement procedures the employees could also claim compensation of up to 8 weeks pay.
I don't have an issue with you retiring these 2 employees (although as you have said, it is good practice to allow people to stay working after 65 if they want), but i just wanted to check you were aware of the procedure that should be followed and any risks of not following it if you choose to do so.
More than happy to have a chat with you about this if you feel it would be helpful. I apologise in advance if you have already got advice from Abbey about this.
Regards
Helen Simpson
HR Specialist - National Consultancy Services
Tel: 0113 224 5860
Mobile: 07970 990 421
From: Murphy, Val
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Simpson, Helen
Subject: FW: CWCAB - Retirement Age
From: Barrett, Jon [mailto:J.Barrett@ljmu.ac.uk]
Sent: Fri 29/01/2010 12:37
To: Barrett, Jon; John McLintock; RICHARD WOOD; Wendy Steel; cathyboyd@strategicpartnershipsconsultancy.co.uk; lesedwards681@btinternet.com; Graham Carrington; Murphy, Val
Cc: michael brennan
Subject: RE: CWCAB
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
I was trying to keep any specifics out of this but can understand that the way I have presented this has probably given the wrong impression.
The current state of play is that employees can request to continue working beyond 65 and it is at the employers discretion whether they agree. Historically the approach to this has varied through the bureaux.
As Les points out there is much discussion and I believe proposals to alter this (I suspect the pending election will impact on this as well).
As an organisation I believe (and I know the management team do) that we should be encouraging people to work on as long as they are capable and happy to.
We have a very difficult situation currently with one member of staff who has given many many years of loyal service to the bureau. Despite a considerable amount of effort, resource etc by the management team this member of staff is a capability scenario and a risk to the organisation. The member of staff would never resign and we currently have no choice but to go down a capability route which would be very sad for all concerned. We have one other member of staff who is over 65 who Michael is confident would accept resigning.
It is therefore our view that the kindest option currently is to retire the person concerned which of course can only be done if this is accross the piece ie both.
There is no need to change any contracts as the current law leaves acceptance of continued working at the discretion of the employer so this does not become a standard irrevocable policy.
Moving forward this is an area that we need to be guided by changes in the law but in the interim we are following the letter of the law.
I should emphasise this will be a painful and emotive decision for the person concerned and the management team carrying it out but it is the view of the management team, Richard and I that this is the kindest route. I should also emphasise that Richard and I are aware of the history of this person as they are from the old Vale Royal bureau.
I apologise for not providing a fuller explanation last night - it was a long day!
I did reply to Cathy last night who is now happy with this but can I start again and ask anyone who still objects just to let me know for close Monday - if anyone does object then obviously we will not go forward.
Thanks,
Jon
________________________________________
From: Barrett, Jon [J.Barrett@ljmu.ac.uk]
Sent: 28 January 2010 21:40
To: Barrett, Jon; RICHARD WOOD; Wendy Steel; cathyboyd@strategicpartnershipsconsultancy.co.uk; lesedwards681@btinternet.com; Graham Carrington; John McLintock; John McLintock; Val Murphy
Cc: michael brennan
Subject: CWCAB
Michael and the management team have proposed imposing complusary retirement for paid staff over 65 - this currently only affects two members of staff and suits business need. The management team feel that one of the members of staff would be more than happy with this and in the case of the other it is very much in that persons best interests.
Richard and I are fully supportive but out of courtesy wanted to ensure the board had an opportunity to comment before the management team implemented with these members of staff.
As there is some urgency could I ask that should anyone feel strongly against they let me know by say close Monday so the decision can be taken Tuesday,
Many thanks,
Jon
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
The Citizens Advice service helps people resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing information and advice, and by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice is an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Information and Advice www.adviceguide.org.uk
For information about our campaigns, to volunteer or support us www.citizensadvice.org.uk
NOTICE: this e-mail originates from Citizens Advice, an operating name of The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (Charity Registration Number 279057, VAT number 726 0202 76, Company limited by guarantee, Registered Number 1436945 England, Registered office Myddelton House, 115-123 Pentonville Road, London N1 9LZ). It contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or reply to this e-mail (other than for the reason stated above).
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses
No comments:
Post a Comment