The trustees of a pension fund have the same equal treatment obligations as do employers. The effect of the judgment in Barber was that: ‘i) For pensionable service prior to 17 May 1990 (the date of the Barber judgment) it was not unlawful for male and female pension benefits to be provided at different retirement ages;
ii) A scheme could be amended so as to equalise benefits for men and women, if the rules of the scheme permitted such amendment. The nature of the amendment could either reduce the normal male retirement age, or increase the normal female retirement age, or both; provided that both sexes were treated equally;
iii) For pensionable service between 17 May 1990 and the operative date of any valid amendment male members of a pension scheme were entitled to be treated as if their normal retirement age was the same age as that applicable to female members (usually 60). This period is known, in the jargon, as ‘the Barber window’.’
Citations:
Times 30-Nov-1994, C-200/91, [1994] EUECJ C-200/91, [1994] OPLR 179
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group ECJ 17-May-1990
Europa The benefits paid by an employer to a worker on the latter’s redundancy constitute a form of pay to which the worker is entitled in respect of his employment, which is paid to him upon termination of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Trustee Solutions Ltd and others v Dubery and Another ChD 21-Jun-2006
The rules of a pensions scheme were altered. It was required that any such alteration be in writing, but the trustees had not signed the document creating the amendment.
Held: The words ‘writing under hand’ clearly required a signature, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, European
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160755