Oxford professors ‘forced to retire’ win tribunal case

It might be noted also that the U lost its appeal to an Employment Appeal Tribunal that it made over the decision of the Ewart ET. And also that the sacked admin colleague, appointed only two years earlier, was being dismissed under the EJRA at the same time that a Review Panel was concluding that its application to such posts could not be justified and should cease. The U should make public just how much it has spent on legal fees and paying out compensation over the past decade (including at several internal appeals against these sackings). Its EJRA is a deeply flawed policy that the U is incapable of demonstrating the effectiveness (and hence lawfulness) of - notably, as the Ewart ET & EAT and now this ET comments, because inexplicably the U’s HR bods have neglected over the decade to bother to monitor its results so as to be able to offer justification. The EJRA saga is a shameful blot on the reputation of a great institution and key folk involved in it design and negligent implementation should be held to account.

It might be noted also that the U lost its appeal to an Employment Appeal Tribunal that it made over the decision of the Ewart ET. And also that the sacked admin colleague, appointed only two years earlier, was being dismissed under the EJRA at the same time that a Review Panel was concluding that its application to such posts could not be justified and should cease. The U should make public just how much it has spent on legal fees and paying out compensation over the past decade (including at several internal appeals against these sackings). Its EJRA is a deeply flawed policy that the U is incapable of demonstrating the effectiveness (and hence lawfulness) of - notably, as the Ewart ET & EAT and now this ET comments, because inexplicably the U’s HR bods have neglected over the decade to bother to monitor its results so as to be able to offer justification. The EJRA saga is a shameful blot on the reputation of a great institution and key folk involved in it design and negligent implementation should be held to account.

It might be noted also that the U lost its appeal to an Employment Appeal Tribunal that it made over the decision of the Ewart ET. And also that the sacked admin colleague, appointed only two years earlier, was being dismissed under the EJRA at the same time that a Review Panel was concluding that its application to such posts could not be justified and should cease. The U should make public just how much it has spent on legal fees and paying out compensation over the past decade (including at several internal appeals against these sackings). Its EJRA is a deeply flawed policy that the U is incapable of demonstrating the effectiveness (and hence lawfulness) of - notably, as the Ewart ET & EAT and now this ET comments, because inexplicably the U’s HR bods have neglected over the decade to bother to monitor its results so as to be able to offer justification. The EJRA saga is a shameful blot on the reputation of a great institution and key folk involved in it design and negligent implementation should be held to account.

Finally classist and agist Oxbridge will be held to the same law as all other employers have to abide by in this country. If a person is incapable then retire them on capability grounds, but if not, then stop the agism.

I don't understand - why would anyone want to work in the UK's broken higher education system past the age at which they can collect their pension?