The landmark judgment delivered by the EAT in Miller v. Governing Body of Ridings High School case has brought much cheer to the employers. Miss Miller’s claim of being unfairly fired was dismissed by EAT as the documents proved that the retirement taken by her was based on mutual agreement.

Over the years, it has been observed that a large number of unjust dismissal cases have been registered by disgruntled ill health retirees against their former employers. These cases lead the employers to argue that if both parties agreed upon the retirement terms and conditions, how could it amount to unjust dismissal.

The verdict of the EAT is that retirement taken by ill employees based on a common understanding between the employer and the employee cannot be termed as unfair. While charges can still be pressed against an employer if an employee is forced to take a retirement by their employer, if they are dismissed using forceful measures, or if the employee’s fixed term contract comes to an end, these remain the only circumstances in which a claim of unfair dismissal will be entertained.

No charges can be pressed against employers if the terms of retirement have been discussed and mutually agreed with. Though this judgement certainly comes as a boost to all employers, they should nevertheless practice caution while preparing papers for ill health retirees. The documents should clearly convey the message that the retirement is based on consent and is not forced. Employers can still face trouble, however, if employees are able to prove that fair allowances were not made for them or that discrimination had a role to play in the retirement.

Contact the experts at Workplace Law for all the redundancy advice information you need.