A.Your statement is based on a stereotypical view of older (and younger !) people at work. If it is important that a new team member fits in well with the rest of the team then why not see applicants who meet the person specification for the post and assess their suitability through probing questions at interview about their past experience of team working and other qualities before deciding whether or not they will complement the range of skills and personalities in your team. After all, it is quite possible that your customers will have a wide age range and may appreciate being dealt with by an older person for a change !

AYour approach is potentially directly discriminatory on age grounds. However, whilst you should not exclude younger people who apply from consideration (if they otherwise meet the selection criteria for interview), you may be able to objectively justify giving preference to older candidates if you have statistical evidence to back up your statement about higher turnover amongst younger staff. Perhaps you should look for evidence of candidates’ stability in employment - irrespective of age – and interview those who appear to have a stable record, testing your perceptions of them at interview.

A The ‘LIFO’ approach will indirectly discriminate against younger workers, who are most likely to be ‘last in’. Despite your agreement with the union, you will have to adopt a more sophisticated approach to assessment of who to retain – based on factors such as qualifications, skills, experience of various work tasks, disciplinary record and previous appraisal assessments of their performance. Mark each person in the affected group against these criteria and select those who score lowest for redundancy, irrespective of age. The union will, hopefully, understand that your former agreement potentially breaks the law and that it needs updating.

A This redundancy pay scheme indirectly discriminates against younger people who are most likely to fall in the ‘lower service’ category. If challenged by someone about this indirect discrimination, you would be required to justify (perhaps to an Employment Tribunal !) your scheme as being a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. The ‘legitimate aim’ might be to reward employees for long service, to encourage loyalty and to cushion older workers against disadvantage in the labour market – but you will be required to demonstrate that the indirectly discriminatory effects of your policy are substantially outweighed by the business benefits you will achieve. Remember: if your company RP scheme mirrors the statutory scheme (in that it has the same ‘age break’ at 40 / 41) but varies the benefits payable (e.g. no cap on a week’s pay or double the statutory entitlements) then you will not be called upon to justify it, as it will be exempted under the age regulations.

AThe person specification you are using uses ‘length of experience’ as shorthand for ‘possessing particular knowledge and quality of experience appropriate to the demands of the job’. However, describing it in crude terms of mere quantity of experience will potentially open you up to allegations of indirect discrimination against younger applicants. Why not decide exactly what elements of experience are required to ‘hit the ground running’ and specify them in selecting candidates for interview ? You may even get a more targeted selection system by using criteria which don’t discriminate on age grounds !

A Apart from potentially excluding candidates who are perfectly capable of being developed in the business (because they graduated more than a year ago) you may be opening up the company to accusations of direct discrimination if you turn away an otherwise suitable candidate who happens to have graduated a few years back and who will, almost certainly, be in an older age group. If challenged you will have to certain that your ‘recent graduate’ policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim. The business aim (to find someone with development and promotion potential) is laudable. Whether restricting candidates (largely) to young people is a proportionate means of achieving this is arguable. You will need hard evidence, if challenged, to back up your decision to indirectly discriminate against older candidates in this way.

A If you decide to retire him at 65 you will need to consider formally any written request he may make to stay on beyond his birthday. If you are using ‘retirement’ as a way of avoiding dismissing him for excessive absence then you run the risk that a tribunal will find that your reason for dismissal was misleading and find that it was unfair. Remember that, since 1^st October 2006, over 65’s have the right to claim unfair dismissal. Better to manage the absence problem, with appropriate warnings if the absences are becoming excessive – but watch out for the Disability Discrimination Act !

A No. You simply need to explain, if challenged under the age regulations, to the satisfaction of a tribunal that you reasonably believe that your policy rewards the loyalty and commitment of staff and encourages them to stay with you longer.

A Teasing only becomes harassment if it is unwelcome and has the purpose or effect of violating someone’s dignity; or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. Whilst everyone seems to be having a laugh at the moment, you run the risk of an employee becoming discontented at work or for the teasing to move into the ‘unwelcome’ category for that employee to take the opportunity complain that the joking constitutes ‘age harassment’. The message must go out to the workforce from management that joking must not be offensive to others and that anyone who finds it offensive can ask for it to stop – at pain of disciplinary action against those who don’t get the message !

A You will need to be sure that your view of the sales person’s qualities is based on sound evidence rather than prejudice against younger workers. If there is some doubt about the matter, why not allow her to apply for the post and assess her relative abilities and qualities against those of other candidates (internal and external) – if she’s not the best person for the job you can select someone else who is. If she is unsuccessful you might also follow this recruitment exercise up with a discussion with your salesperson about how she could develop the skills and experience required to promote her in future.

A One potentially valid reason an employer might give for not recruiting an older worker to a post which involves significant training input before they are fully productive is that the employer will not see a significant return on that investment in terms of service before the worker decides to retire. On the other hand, if your 54 year old can stay with you for the next 10 – 15 years, your argument might be a little weak if younger trainees typically leave after 4-5 years with the company ! Why not consider him on his merits and see what his greater maturity and past working experience might bring to the post that younger trainees might lack ?