Employee Awarded Compensation for Unjustified Mandatory Retirement
Background
The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as a lithographic printer from September 1992. He turned 65 in October 2024, and his employment was terminated as a result. The Complainant’s contract of employment contained a mandatory retirement age of 65 which he claimed did not comply with the protections contained in the Employment Equality Acts.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant suffered an ankle injury and was off work on medical leave for surgery on the injury for a number of months. Prior to taking the period of leave, his supervisor asked if he intended to continue working past the normal retirement age. The Complainant indicated that he had no option given the expense of the surgery and rehabilitation costs that he was facing. He was informed that he needed to submit a request three months prior to the upcoming date of retirement. He submitted his request, but the Respondent refused to allow him to continue working past his 65th birthday. The Complainant appealed the decision to terminate his employment, and an appeal hearing was convened where he was assisted by his union representative in presenting his case. Unfortunately, the Respondent refused to alter their decision. No reason was given to the Complainant for this refusal.
The Complainant stated that he had indicated in discussions with his line manager in April that he wished to work on after his retirement, and he stated that he sent a written request in July 2024 to that effect. He stated that although the Respondent claimed that the letter in response to this was hand delivered to him, he has no memory of receiving it. He stated that an appeal meeting took place in October but that he also could not remember receiving the letter with the appeal outcome. He stated that he must have left in September but could not remember
The Complainant was asked why he thought his request was refused and he stated that the person who replaced him was getting paid less. He also noted that four named colleagues were permitted to remain on after their retirement age: one in 2025 who sought the extension in 2023, 1 in 2022 and two others in the early 2020s.
Under cross examination, the Complainant confirmed that he had a good working relationship with his Employer who considered him to be a good Employee. He stated that he was aware of the contractual age of retirement at 65 and he was also aware that his company pension was due to mature once he turned 65.
He was asked whether the Respondent sought to retain people after the age of 65 and he replied that they did but confirmed that he was not aware of any changes in staffing nor any changes in the printing aspect of the business.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
The first witness for the Respondent stated that he had regular contact and interaction with the Complainant who was a good Employee. He stated that in March or April ,he had two conversations with the Complainant regarding post-retirement employment. He stated that in the first conversation he asked the Complainant would he like to continue working but received no real answer and the second time the Complainant did not really indicate his intentions. He stated that the Complainant was absent from work for a period and the trainee was assigned to cover his machine. He stated that the training was part of a long training programme that was well established within the Respondent and that the person remained on that machine after the Complainant retired.
The witness noted that the business performance in 2024 was a lot less than it had been in previous years. He added that significant numbers left employment. He stated that he had no conversation with the Complainant after April until he returned to work later in the year. He stated that he had no contact with the named comparators except for one who had stayed on, and the witness noted that business was better in 2023 in comparison to when the Complainant had sought to stay on after his retirement.
The witness was asked whether business had picked up since the Complainant left but he noted that the Organisation was still only running two shifts per week not three as had previously been the case.
Under cross examination, he confirmed that the trainee was not a new Employee, that he had worked for the Organisation for two to three years. He noted that the trainee was redeployed when the digital process was removed from the Organisation and accordingly had to go undergo a training course. He confirmed that he was not consulted in relation to any other roles or a reduced hours role that may have been suitable for the Complainant.
The second witness for the Respondent confirmed that extension of employment after the age of 65 was dealt with on a case-by-case basis based on the business needs of the Employer. She confirmed that there was no written policy but noted that the matter was a business practice. She confirmed that she had been involved in previous requests and noted that nobody had made up this practice after the fact to suit the process. She confirmed again that when an Employee requests to work on after retirement age that is the process, and it is based on business needs at the time of the request.
The witness confirmed that the Organisation had a need to reduce headcount and confirmed that a redundancy process was carried out in 2025. When asked whether other roles were considered for the Complainant, she said no that they were not.
Another witness for the Respondent stated that the company pension started when someone reached the age of 65 and the Complainant was in receipt of the pension since his retirement. She noted that the company’s general position regarding staying on depended on the capacity and business needs of the Respondent. She stated that the company’s performance was not great in the intervening period and that up to seventeen people had left through natural attrition and had not been replaced. She stated that the training programme was an apprenticeship, and you must have a certain number of participants coming through at any given time to ensure its continuity. She stated that the trainee came from the digital press side and would not have been a new entrant.
Findings and Conclusions
The Adjudicator concluded that the retirement age was laid down in the contract of employment, and the Complainant was aware of its existence. The retirement age did not seem to have been justified in writing in either the contract of employment or in a standalone Employee handbook or retirement policy, at least nothing such was not submitted to the WRC for consideration. Furthermore, the Complainant was in receipt of his company pension from the date of his retirement.
The Respondent in its submissions outlined that it operated its retirement policy on a succession planning basis. Although the Respondent’s management outlined a rationale for the retirement age, i.e. that of succession planning, which is reasonable, this rationale was not detailed in either the contract of employment nor in any handbook or policies submitted to the WRC. Therefore, it was difficult to see how the rationale for the retirement age was within the knowledge of the workforce, and more specifically that the Complainant was aware of this rationale.
The witnesses were credible when providing their evidence, but the Respondent’s evidence pointed to a lack of objective justification of the retirement age in writing, and any consideration of the means to achieving that justifiable action.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the complaint was well founded. The Complainant was retired on the age ground and established a prima facie case of age-related discrimination.
The Respondent was therefore required to establish an objective justification for the Complainant’s retirement and that it was appropriate and necessary to avail of the defence outlined in Section 34(4) of the Employment Equality Act. No rationale on retirement age or policy was set down in writing and the defence was therefore not available to the Respondent.
Decision
The Complainant was discriminated against on the age ground and awarded €5,000 in compensation.
Recommendations
The WRC found that this Organisation had failed to establish an objectively justified mandatory retirement age. Although the Respondent relied on succession planning and business needs in its defence, these justifications were not reflected in any written retirement policy or procedure, nor were they clearly communicated to Employees. This lack of documented objective justification, together with the absence of a transparent process for considering longer working requests, resulted in a finding of age discrimination.
With the recent introduction of an Employee’s statutory right to notify their Employer that they do not consent to compulsory retirement before reaching the State Pension Age, it is more important than ever for Organisations to review and update their retirement policies.
Organisations should ensure that any mandatory retirement age is supported by a clearly documented legitimate aim and that there is a fair, transparent and consistently applied procedure for considering requests to work beyond retirement.