Plaintiff-employee was informed by the defendant, his employer, that his employment would be terminated because he had attained the age of sixty-five and it was the policy of the defendant to retire such employees. There was evidence indicating that this policy had been in practice uniformly for several years, but it was not incorporated in the collective bargaining agreement between defendant and plaintiff's union. Plaintiff sued for damages for violation of his rights under the collective agreement. Held, judgment for plaintiff. The legal and practical effect of compulsory retirement is the same as a discharge, and plaintiff's employment was therefore forcibly terminated without any cause expressed or contemplated by the labor agreement and in violation of his rights. Nichols v. National Tube Co., (D.C. Ohio 1954) 122 F. Supp. 726.
Douglas Peck S.Ed.,
Labor Law - Collective Bargaining- Compulsory Retirement as Discharge "Without Cause" Under Collective Bargaining Agreement,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol53/iss7/15