Made sign new contract........then told not entitled to any redundancy

B

Bob the slob

Registered User
Messages
394
Hi folks.

Someone in my family has worked in a school for 19 years. A very high profile school in leaft South Dublin. She worked on a part time basis as a cleaner. Anyway, she was brought in a few months back and made sign a new contract.........to which the contract said that she was not insured to be on the premises anymore as she was o ver 70 years of age.

The contact also stated that she was not entitled to any redundancy now becuase she was over 70 years of age, even though she had been working there for 19 years.

Surely this cannot be legal.

The person just signed the contract without ever thinking the school would be trying to pull a fast one.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

She was basically let go becuase of her age and didnt get one single penny from the school in a redundancy payment.
 
It would be normal for an employer to want there to be a retirement date. There is is no redundancy payment on retirement because it is not a redundancy situation.

Everybody has to retire eventually. 70 is quite old for physical work.

The suggestion that your relative should work without the benefit of employer's liability insurance seems very unfair. Does the contract seek to exclude the school from liability? I think that is beyond the bounds. If the school cannot insure your relative then they should not be employing him/her.
 
Might be worth having a chat with the Equality Authority to see if the school or the insurer is allowed discriminate based on age in this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top