The 10 points of age

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations are now in force and apply to employment and vocational training, prohibiting unjustified direct and indirect age discrimination, as well as all harassment and victimisation on grounds of age, of people of any age, young or old.

All employers, providers of vocational training, trade unions, professional associations, employer organisations and trustees, and managers of occupational pension schemes have new obligations to consider.

So what does this mean for the Civil Service’s 10-point-plan?

The 10-point-plan was developed following a review of equality and diversity in employment in the Civil Service by Waqar Azmi, the Chief Diversity Adviser to the Civil Service. It takes account of thinking in this area by the Civil Service Management Board and senior diversity champions. The aim of the 10-point plan was to improve delivery of services for everyone in society through achieving a truly diverse Civil Service workforce at all levels, including our most senior.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations affect recruitment, development, diversity in practice, behaviour and culture change, all of which are key target areas within the 10-point–plan.

Point 7 of the 10-point plan is dedicated to behavioural and cultural change; 'The Civil Service must demonstrate that it has a policy of zero tolerance of discrimination on any grounds and of bullying behaviour’. The Age Regulations cover direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation; employers can be held responsible for the actions of employees in all four cases.

Point 9 covers Mainstreaming Diversity; ‘Equality and diversity must be on the agenda at all levels, in every part of our organisation if it is to succeed. It cannot be a bolt-on to other policies or initiatives’. The Age Regulations especially focus on creating a diverse workforce, maximising a wide spectrum of ages can offer to an organisation, both in skills and outlook.

Falkirk Council believe “The age-diversity of our employees provides the wide variety of skills we need to deliver high quality service”.

It seems a lot of people are going to need to revisit policies/procedures to make sure their organisation is complying with the new law.

Ken Robertson, Learning Consultant for Epic professional says, "Traditionally, the civil service has championed equality and diversity programmes. Yet, even they may have failed to fully grasp the implications of the 2006 regulations and the changes required within the service culture.

First, it’s crucial to recognise the drastic scope shift between the legislation’s origin and its outcome. The former sought to redress the imbalance between the working and the retired population as baby boomers aged, while the latter embraced all ages as potential victims of discrimination.

Any department that focuses solely on older staff is only picking up part of the picture. Talk to anyone in the field and they’ll tell you the first cases expected to reach the law courts won’t be older staff. They’ll be young staff rejected for a post or promotion due to their ‘lack of experience’. All departments must be aware of the regulations’ reach – that they affect all staff and all aspects of the workplace, from recruitment to retirement.

Secondly, it’s crucial to recognise a fundamental difference between this piece of anti-discriminatory legislation and earlier regulations.

Unlike, for example, race discrimination regulations, the Age Discrimination regulations 2006 explicitly permit exemptions under the seemingly ironclad term ‘objective justification’.

Clear-cut in the case of say, a fire-fighter. But this is the exception. The rule is riddled with ambiguity – in short, it awaits case law. All expert opinion expects a flurry of cases that will test the mettle of objective justification.

For example, linking salary to length of service of over five years might be justifiable in terms of retention of staff. But, unless this ‘common sense’ defence can be supported by actual retention data – to give the required degree of objectivity – the practice could expose a department.

Lastly, there is one truly unambiguous element to the regulations – pleading ignorance, the so-called idiot’s defence, is not an option."