Many over 65s have faced 'redundancy'
Wiltshire Times
www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk
10th December 2010
Having read the article in Wiltshire Times (December 4(below)), I am disappointed for the post-65 Longleat staff, but I am not suprised by the action.

At Lyneham, senior and very competent members of the Babcocks avionics department were treated in precisely this way by one company director, even though the contract manager wished all staff to continue until Lyneham closed. The word 'Redundancy' is used in the article, however this may not be the case. If the employee has worked on past 65 with no change to their contract, then redundancy may apply, the very least the company must do is give six months notice of termination or salary in lieu of notice.

Companies normally foresee the problems and therefore issue a new contract of employment at the age of 65. This contract will state a termination date and must be a legal minimum of three months. Redundancy entitlement for years worked would cease with the issue of the new contract.
Letter by Roger P, Westbury

This is how our loyalty is repaid at Longleat
Wiltshire Times
www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk
4th December 2010
Longleat employees have hit out at the estate’s plan to make workers over the age of 65 redundant. Sixty-four-year-old security guard Melvyn Thomas, who has just returned to work following chemotherapy treatment for cancer, was told he has to leave when he reaches 65 in May next year.

The father-of-two is also having to move home with wife Elizabeth, 57, because they have a tied house on the estate. Mr and Mrs Thomas have applied for council housing because their free house on the estate will rise to £795 a month when the security guard leaves Longleat. The former Army dog handler said: “I am very angry about this. Longleat always said we could carry on working beyond 65 until now. I need to work at least another 18 months to be able to afford to live during my retirement. I work 12-and-a-half hour long night shifts seven days a week, for £6.43 an hour. I don’t do it for the money – I do it because I loved the job.”

Last week Longleat said all employees aged 65 plus would be made redundant, despite the law changing next year to allow those over 65 to continue in employment. Longleat has said the decision is part of modernising the estate after Lord Bath handed the business to his son Ceawlin, Viscount Weymouth, in March.

Mr Thomas said: “I owe Longleat nothing now. They have shown me and my family no loyalty whatsoever. I used to baby-sit Ceawlin when he was little – now look how they have repaid us.”

A total of 27 employees are losing their jobs at the attraction, including 18 over 70, seven over 75, and two over 80-years-old. Among them is John Hayton, 70, and his wife Anne, 67, who have both worked at Longleat for 40 years. The railway manager left the track he had built up since 1970 on Friday, while his wife and fellow train employee will work her notice until April next year.

The grandfather, whose son, Andy, looks after the giraffes in the safari park and grandson, Mark, tends to the estate’s grounds, said: “They are looking to change Longleat and turn it into something like Disneyland. “Apparently the railway is going to be renamed the jungle railway so had I still been in charge, I think I would have left anyway. We realise the place needs modernising, but they are doing it in the wrong way.”

Longleat spokesman James Henderson said: “This is unrelated to changes in the law. It’s about modernising the profile of the staff. Clearly in the modern day we need to make these changes. We appreciate all of those staff who have given long years of service.”

Over 65s get the axe from Longleat
Wiltshire Times
www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk
26th November 2010
Over 65s working at Longleat are to be made redundant, despite the law changing next year to allow those over 65 to continue in employment. The Government is planning to scrap the default retirement age in the UK from October next year.

Under the proposal, employers would not be allowed to dismiss staff because they had reached the age of 65. Longleat is in the process of axeing all its over 65 employees before the law is changed. This includes 18 members of staff over the age of 70, seven over the age of 75, and two over the age of 80. The 27 employees’ duties included cleaning, manning telephones, taking guided tours and selling tickets.

Longleat spokesman James Henderson told the Wiltshire Times that the move is part of a modernising the tourist attraction after 78-year-old Lord Bath handed over the running of the estate to his son Ceawlin, Viscount Weymouth, in March. “This is unrelated to changes in the law. It’s about modernising the profile of the staff. Clearly in the modern day we need to make these changes. We appreciate all of those staff who have given long years of service.”

Some of the workers also have ‘tied’ houses on the estate, but bosses have stressed they are trying to resolve these issues. “Longleat are doing as much as they can with those employees to make sure they have housing,” Mr Henderson said.

TUC regional secretary Nigel Costley believes Longleat needs its more experienced employees. He said: “The case has been made very successfully that age discrimination is wrong on a human and morale level but it’s also bad for business. Businesses thrive when their employees have a range of talents, expertise and knowledge. I’m sure Longleat would like to attract older customers and it’s therefore helpful to have older workers. They bring experience and knowledge which they have gained during their working life.”

South West Wiltshire MP, Dr Andrew Murrison, who has written to Lord Bath about the move, said: “I imagine that Lord Bath and Longleat still regard themselves as responsible, even benevolent employers. The coalition government has made it clear that ageism in the workplace is unacceptable and has taken legislative steps to remove it.”

Age UK, formerly Age Concern, is worried other companies might force retirements before the law is changed next year. A spokesman for the charity said: “The fact that this is legally allowed doesn’t make it any less arbitrary or unfair to older employees who would see their working lives cut short for no reason other than their age.”