July 10 2006 Employment Law Enews

Welcome to the latest edition of employment law enews.

High Court Challenge to Age Regulations

'Heyday', an organisation created by and closely associated with Age Concern, last week issued a judicial review application in the High Court challenging the legality of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations"), which come into force in October this year.

Heyday argue that the 2006 Regulations fail to properly implement the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive ("the Directive") as the 'duty to consider' retirement provisions still effectively exclude people over 65 from having a right to work, only in fact giving them the right to request to work beyond this 'normal' retirement age. Heyday argues that unless mandatory retirement ages are scrapped, the Directive cannot hope to stop older people who want or need to keep working being forced out of work in the UK.

If permission for a hearing is granted, the High Court will have to closely consider the legality of the Regulations in light of the Directive, and determine whether indeed the UK has properly met its Member State obligations.

Commenting on the campaign as part of the Heyday press release, Neil Churchill of Heyday says:

"Taking the Government to court is not a step we are taking lightly. Heyday is not a pressure group, but we have to act and the time to act is now. We are determined to challenge the existence and legality of forced retirement. It's what people approaching retirement want; it's good for business, good for the economy and good for society."

The Government has 21 days to submit a response to Heyday's application to the High Court. If permission is granted for the case to proceed, a full oral hearing will take place, most likely in early autumn.

With a great number of interested parties watching on, all we can say at this stage is please watch this space!

Sick Pay Proposals Scrapped

Controversial proposals for employers to pay Statutory Sick Pay to employees from the first day of absence due to illness have been scrapped by the Government.

The Welfare Reform Green Paper which introduced the concept of Statutory Sick Pay being payable from the first day of absence was heavily criticised by employers and the British Chamber of Commerce. It was argued that scrapping the "three waiting days" rule could increase the number of sick days taken by employees who were not genuinely ill and subsequently could encourage malingerers.

The British Chambers of Commerce disputed the rational for such proposals and argued that contrary to intention, they did not simplify absence management for businesses as it created a "perverse incentive for individuals to take occasional sick days". It was further argued that current legislation under which employees are entitled to receive statutory sick pay commencing from the fourth consecutive day of absence was more effective in combating absenteeism.

The Government having received such strong opposition is now planning on designing a new sick pay system which will assist businesses reduce the level of sickness absence whilst simultaneously addressing the issue of vulnerable employees.

Calls for Equal Pay at Wimbledon

The culture secretary Tessa Jowell has called for the payment of equal prize money to both male and female tennis players at the Wimbledon Championships.

In a letter to the All England Lawn Tennis Club Committee, Ms Jowell raised her concerns about the significant prize money gap, claiming she was "deeply concerned about the ongoing disparity between the money paid to male and female players".

Ms Jowell praised competitions such as the United States Open and Australian Open in awarding equal prize money to both men and women, urging Wimbledon to follow suit, as it was the only major international tournament to not offer equal pay.

This year £655,000 will be awarded to the men's singles champion and £220,690 to the doubles winners. In comparison, the women's singles champion will win £625,000 whilst the doubles winners will receive £205,280.

Ms Jowell averred that such discrepancy between the payments awarded to male and female players was "tarnishing the image of the championship".

Supporters of the pay discrepancy allege that the payments awarded are fair considering that women play three-set matches rather than the longer five-set matches in the men's game.

The gender disparity in the allocation of prize money has long since incensed women players at Wimbledon. Most recently, Venus Williams argued that women tennis players should be treated on an equal footing as their male counter-parts and that players were willing to be "extremely proactive" in their stance.

The call for the abolition of the pay difference is not a surprise considering that the UK appears to be the last to follow suit. The French Open announced two months ago that it would be awarding equal pay to its men's and women's champions. Although no official statement has been released by the All England Tennis Club, it will be interesting to see whether Wimbledon concedes and responds by bringing its prize structure in line with the rest of world tennis.

This article copyright © 2006 Steeles Law llp. All rights reserved.