Mandatory Retirement Age - Company told to give employee forced into retirement his job back

Facts

Thomas Doolin was employed as a desktop support agent in Eir's (the Company and the Respondent) internal IT department on a salary of €35,000 per annum. He was informed in February 2023 that he would have to retire on 1 July last as he turned 65. Mr Doolin represented himself in Workplace Relations Commission (the WRC) case and claimed the decision by management to impose a mandatory retirement age was "unfair". The Company denied any discrimination saying that it set a mandatory retirement age across the organization in July 2020 which was accepted by Mr Doolin (he commenced employment with the Company in 2019).

Mr Doolin claimed that the decision was unfair as he loved his job and performed very well in his role.

The Company's position was that the imposition of a mandatory retirement age was objectively justifiable on grounds of intergenerational fairness as it needed to maintain an age balance and for succession planning reasons to avoid the risk of large cohorts of staff retiring at the same time. The HR manager on behalf of the Company gave evidence that the Company would incur additional costs and bureaucratic challenges if it couldn’t apply a single retirement age. The Respondent was also significantly concerned with health and safety implications as up to 85 per cent of their workers performed duties outside of the office. The impact of health and safety on these roles can vary significantly depending on both their exact nature and the time spent in them.

Decision

The WRC Adjudication Officer (the AO) didn’t accept the Respondent's health and safety point as Mr Doolin was an office-based worker. The alleged mass retirement scenario argument also was not accepted as Mr Doolin worked in a small and non-strategic IT department. In relation to the argument of maintaining intergenerational fairness and the associated need to safeguard career progression, particularly given the specific position Mr Doolin held within the Company and his somewhat junior role, the AO was unconvinced that retaining him in employment would have impeded the career progression of any other employee. The AO noted his limited skillset and depleted income since being forced to retire together with his desire to remain on in his position. Considering all the above, the AO found that there was no objective justification (reasonably justified by a legitimate aim) for the mandatory retirement age of 65.

On that basis the AO directed that Mr Doolin be re-instated to his position. No award was made for the effects of discrimination however Mr Doolin was entitled to back pay from the time he was retired (July 2023) to reinstatement in November 2023. Eir has confirmed that it intends to appeal the ruling as it has implications for its company retirement policy which it says is founded on objective and proportionate rationale.

Comment

As things stand, pending the outcome of any appeal, employers should carefully review their mandatory retirement contractual clauses and policies, and should approach similar scenarios on a case-by-case basis, rather than a one size fits all approach to retirement.

For more information, please contact Shane Costelloe, Sinead Grace, or any member of the Beauchamps employment team.