Retirement age

[manhav]

The other issue is the attitude of the person who asked me the question. If you say that a person of 60 years of age or older are unproductive, then you may open another can of worms, and that is possible discrimination based on age.

I know people of 60 years and older, who are much more efficient and productive than the 25 year old who was appointed recently.

Admittedly, yes, when it gets to hard physical labour, it is very possible that the 60 year old is far less productive than the 25 year old.

But that is not the point I wish to drive home or discuss.

The fact remains that the new employer, in the scenario I have sketched in the original post, has a problem. Now whether the new employer was aware of the ages of the employees of the old employer at the time of the transfer of the business, is unknown to me. Maybe the new employer saw an excellent business opportunity, grabbed it and signed the sales agreement, without giving thought to the ages of the existing employees.

Another issue that the new employer may face, is that the newly appointed employees may demand that the retirement age for the all the employees be increased to 65 years.

Manie Havenga
Havenga & Viljoen Attorneys

[Dave A]

The other issue is the attitude of the person who asked me the question. If you say that a person of 60 years of age or older are unproductive, then you may open another can of worms, and that is possible discrimination based on age.

I know people of 60 years and older, who are much more efficient and productive than the 25 year old who was appointed recently.

Admittedly, yes, when it gets to hard physical labour, it is very possible that the 60 year old is far less productive than the 25 year old.

Pretty much what was going through my head too. Even with the physical labour side, you'd hope there is some level of progression within the organisation that mitigates that.

But that is not the point I wish to drive home or discuss.

My apologies for the distraction, but as a manager of sorts I found it an interesting sub-issue.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

A number of interesting options and questions pop up.

The managers intent is the worrying point. I get the feeling that he wants to reduce staff without a retrenchment pay out. The question is why has it suddenly come to the fore, as the tone of teh message does not seem to indicate that a person has turned 60 and tehy now want to retire them. Forced retirement is obviously a natural transgression in lieu of retrenching. No doubt, the statement, that they are passed productive stage is an excellent indication of his plans. And, as you say, opens another can of worms.

A question that arises is the 60 year old retirement age - is that the company rule of their own or does the company rule say, as per the pension fund rules? It would seem unlikely that a company can be forced to abide by the pension fund rule, if their policy does not say as per pension fund rules.

I ask this because the 65 year bracket is per the newer employees pension fund rules and not employment contract, which changes the ball game. Further is the pension a benefit or part of remuneration. the relevance here being that benefits can be changed that much more easily than a remuneration element which is a contractual term.

I think also you hit the hammer on the head and an important issue is that these sort of things can be done, but there is a procedure, in this case consultation.

[manhav]

Yes, the manager's intent is quite clear, isn't it?

The problem is that the previous employer's policy regarding retirement age corresponds with that of the pension fund, which also states that the retirement age is 65.

The new employer's policy is that retirement age is at the age of 60. Now, they have several employees who believe they can only go on retirement as the age of 65.

I do not know whether the pension fund was negotiated as a benefit or remuneration.