Retirement age ruling will affect many: lawyer

A court decision against the University of Otago, which was seeking to force staff to retire at 65, will affect thousands of employment contracts, says an employment expert.

In a reserved decision released yesterday, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias decided against allowing the university to enforce retirement at age 65.

The Human Rights Act 1993 did not permit a retirement age to be specified or varied in an employment contract unless the contract was in force on April 1, 1992, and remained in force, she said.

Since the Otago contracts were signed after that date, the compulsory ages specified in them were unlawful.

In the High Court at Dunedin in May, Otago vice-chancellor Graeme Fogelberg had sought a statutory declaration to uphold a provision in some university contracts that required retirement at 65.

Yesterday, and Association of University Staff lawyer and employment contract specialist, Philip Cheyne, said Dame Sian's "common sense" ruling had wide implications for employment law.

"Large numbers of employees in the same situation as the Otago University staff on collective employment contracts now cannot be forced to retire."

Since February 1999, it has been illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of age.

Mr Cheyne cautioned that some employees with individual contracts outside a union collective could still face compulsory retirement.

State-sector employees were also exempt from the ruling, meaning the police compulsory retirement provision of 55 was not affected.

The university said it would not appeal against the ruling.

- NZPA