In the case of Wood v Jada Builders Inc, Ms Woods’ retirement age was 66 years. However, she was allowed to continue working after her retirement age - until she was dismissed at the age of 75 years. The Tribunal ruled that Ms Wood’s dismissal was unfair. And she was entitled to claim that her dismissal was unfair - even though she was dismissed after her retirement age. See paragraphs 4.1 - 4.2 of the case transcript.
Redundancy Selection Policy
The Tribunal said that it was possible that the employer's "Oldest in, First out" redundancy selection policy may amount to unlawful age discrimination. The Tribunal (at paragraph 6.7) also said that -
“This was a missed opportunity to test the age discrimination provision in the Act. The Respondent’s (Jada Builders Inc.) “oldest in, first out” policy, which is documented nowhere in the manual or elsewhere, is on its face discriminatory. Age and no other factor informs its application. We are of the view, that had it been pleaded and argued, this case would have invited serious discussion on, and consideration of, an award (i.e. an award of up to 52 weeks’ wages) for age discrimination, protection against which is enshrined in section 30(1)(c)(xi)(A)…”
For further information about the additional award for unlawful age discrimination - see the news item entitled Additional Award for Automatic Unfair Dismissal.
Analysis
Extending an Employee's Retirement Age
Hence, it would be easier for an employer to convince a Tribunal that the reason for an employee’s dismissal is retirement - if the employee is dismissed on their extended retirement age (e.g. 67 years).
In the case of Grant v Barbados Beach Club, the Tribunal ruled that Mr Grant's retirement dismissal was fair. The Tribunal in the Wood's case distinguished the facts of both cases at paragraph 6.6 of the case transcript.
Also see the news item entitled Government’s Statement About Retirement Age.