James Hazel

By James Hazel James Hazel

— James Hazel is the youngest partner at McKinnells Solicitors in Lincoln. He is the head of the employment and dispute resolution department.

As anyone who lives in Lincoln knows, delays to pedestrians and drivers caused by the High Street railway crossing being closed so often (and for such lengthy periods) causes significant annoyance and frustration. A remedy may be in sight, thanks to a new European directive.

EU transport commissioner Olaf Pirol, has introduced EU Bahnkreuzung ordinance 01/04, which, if enacted, will come into force in the early spring of 2013.

This ordinance creates a new obligation on bodies responsible for operating railway crossings over roads throughout the EU to take appropriate steps to ensure all delays are kept to an acceptable minimum.

What is acceptable is not yet defined, but it is likely to be set at no more than three minutes from the gates or barriers being closed to them being re-opened.

Mr Pirol’s working party has identified that delays caused by such closures costs member states in excess of three billion Euros in lost productivity every year.

He is citing EU Equality Law, which is there to ensure that appropriate compensation is easily accessible in practice regardless of where in the EU a person becomes the victim of a delay by creating a system for cooperation between national authorities.

The principle is that if the operating authority fails to comply with this obligation, individuals so affected will be able to claim compensation.

Again, the exact detail is not yet known, but it has been suggested compensation of 2 Euros per minute for foot passengers and private car owners and 5 Euros per minute for commercial vehicles and buses will be payable.

To avoid fraud, a timing device is to be installed at all major crossings and foot passengers will need to produce a bar-coded ticket to corroborate subsequent claims. CCTV will validate vehicle owner claims in association with number plate recognition technology.

Although most people will cautiously welcome this policy, the stumbling block is that the ordinance only provides for compensation to be paid in Euros.

This is seen by many in the UK Government as being part of a much wider ploy to impose the European single currency onto Britain through the back door.

However, the proposal is still at an early stage so until legislation is passed, we Lincolnites will still have to put up with long waiting times and disruption to our daily routines.

Mr Pirol has said that he hopes this new directive will significantly improve waiting times at crossings, thus improving productivity.

If it works in Lincoln, perhaps he should be given the Freedom of the City!

James is the head of McKinnells Solicitors Lincoln's employment and dispute resolution department and the firm’s youngest partner. He prides himself on his ability to achieve his clients’ goals efficiently and delivers honest and practical advice in an understandable and jargon free way.

By James Hazel James Hazel

— James Hazel is the youngest partner at McKinnells Solicitors in Lincoln. He is the head of the employment and dispute resolution department.

Last year, the government phased out the default retirement age of 65 and, for a while, this country seemed to be gripped by an obsession with ageism. 12 months on and much less is written on the subject, but from the ashes of the now defunct retirement age has arisen a confusing myth: namely that employers can no longer sack staff because of their age. There are (take note) circumstances in which they can.

The point that appears to have got lost somewhere on the journey from the statute books to the board rooms is that what was abolished was the procedure that employers had to follow prior to April 2011 if they wanted to force retirement on a member of staff.

The actual concept of forced retirement itself remains. Contracts of employment can even now specify a predetermined retirement date and employers can still expect to rely on workers leaving on that date provided that the decision to sack at that point is objectively justified.

So clearly the new legal battleground will be focussed on the question of what justifies forced retirement. There are some clues in recent cases. Succession planning is one of them, where older people are forced to retire in order to make way for younger blood to come through the system.

This clearly suggests that as we get older we may become less effective than someone younger, and this may well be justified depending on the type of work.

However, different circumstances call for different approaches. It would, for instance, be more arguable that a job demanding a high level of physical involvement justifies forced retirement at an appropriate age, for example, 48 is the retirement age for football referees.

So although the statutory retirement procedure is gone, there remains a general obligation to follow a fair procedure if employers want to rely on a contractual retirement age. As a bare minimum workers should at least be given the opportunity to request to work beyond their proposed retirement.

There are clearly some very fine lines here. Any forced retirement is going to have to be carefully thought out and planned well in advance in order to be upheld. Making sure that all current employment contracts are reviewed and revised accordingly would be advisable for both the employer and employee.

James is the head of McKinnells Solicitors Lincoln's employment and dispute resolution department and the firm’s youngest partner. He prides himself on his ability to achieve his clients’ goals efficiently and delivers honest and practical advice in an understandable and jargon free way.