This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/6212362.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Challenge over forced retirement Age law challenge goes to Europe
(about 3 hours later)
Anti-ageism campaigners will challenge the government in the High Court later over a law that allows employers to force workers into retirement. A challenge to a law that allows employers to force workers into retirement at 65 has been referred to the European Court of Justice.
The Heyday organisation, with the backing of Age Concern, will ask the High Court to look into the legality of mandatory retirement ages. Anti-ageism campaigners asked the High Court to look into the legality of mandatory retirement ages.
Introduced in October with measures to outlaw ageism, mandatory retirement ages allow bosses to retire over-65s. The action, launched by the Heyday organisation, has now been referred to Europe for legal guidance.
The government says it acted properly in implementing European rules. The government says it acted properly in implementing European rules allowing employers to retire people at 65.
Heyday, part of the National Council on Ageing, says the new government regulations amount to "a de facto mandatory national retirement age".
Its challenge to the law is being backed by Age Concern.
Lawyers for Heyday told the High Court the challenge to the rules was especially important because of the rising number of people working beyond 65 who could be forced into retirement.
Mr Justice Davis, Heyday's lawyers and the government agreed that the case should be referred to Europe on a number of issues.
They will be presented to the judge in January.
New rules
The new age discrimination laws came into force in the UK in October in the biggest single change to employment practices in 30 years.The new age discrimination laws came into force in the UK in October in the biggest single change to employment practices in 30 years.
What the government had hoped with the default retirement age was that it would become a sort of voluntary agreement Sam MercerEmployers' Forum on Age
The new laws - the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 - are the result of a European directive on employment.The new laws - the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 - are the result of a European directive on employment.
They make it unlawful to discriminate against workers under the age of 65 on the grounds of age.They make it unlawful to discriminate against workers under the age of 65 on the grounds of age.
The rules affect recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy, retirement, pay and pension provision.The rules affect recruitment, training, promotion, redundancy, retirement, pay and pension provision.
But it will be argued in the High Court on Wednesday that the regulation fails to protect people over the age of 65 who still want to work. But Heyday argues the regulations contravene the European Equal Treatment Directive because people over 65 are left without the right or choice to work.
Heyday, which represents older people, believes the law contravenes the European Equal Treatment Directive by not giving pensioners the right to choose. Robin Allen QC, for Heyday, said around 380,000 people over the age of 65 were employed in the UK.
It will also claim that the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people approaching retirement age could be better protected. He said up to 25,000 of these were facing retirement against their wishes.
'Forced out' This was "effectively giving these people second-class status because they have no protection against discriminatory decisions to retire them", he said.
Sam Mercer, from the Employers' Forum on Age, told BBC Five Live: "What the government had hoped with the default retirement age was that it would become a sort of voluntary agreement - employers and employees would have a grown-up conversation about how long they wanted to continue working. 'Properly implemented'
"Now while that may be happening for some people, for others they're being forced out." The government is contesting the case and maintains it has fully and properly implemented the rules and has already promised to review the mandatory retirement age in five years.
The government maintains it has fully and properly implemented the rules and has already promised to review the mandatory retirement ages in five years. But David Pannick QC, for the Department of Trade and Industry, agreed it should be referred to Europe on certain preliminary issues.
But Heyday's action, if successful, could force ministers to act sooner. He added that Trade Secretary Alistair Darling would be reviewing the regulations in 2011 to assess their impact.
Heyday's challenge has been adjourned pending a ruling from the European court.
Any individual claims lodged with employment tribunals by people claiming to be the victims of forced retirement at 65 will also be adjourned pending the ruling.
Mature workers are good for business and the economy, Heyday argues.
It claims company profits would rise between £50 million and £110 million if the new rules were scrapped.