Background:

The Complainant submitted he was discriminatorily dismissed on the grounds of age due to enforced retirement on 18th August 2019.  In June 2019, the Complainant advised his manager that he was seeking to work beyond his 65th birthday.  The Complainant was aware of other employees who had been afforded this facility.  He received a letter from the Respondent’s HR Department on 10th June 2019 referring him to the Works Agreement in relation to retirement age.  Following correspondence between the Respondent and the Complainant’s union official, the company confirmed their position by letter dated 15th August 2019.

The Complainant submitted he had a good record with the Respondent and was fit and healthy and able to perform all his duties.  There was no consultation or negotiation with the Complainant about the matter. The Complainant submitted the Respondent did not adhere to the Code of Practice on Longer Working.

The Complainant is one of a number of former Ruskey Plant employees who transferred to the Jamestown Plant and retained the working conditions of the Ruskey Plant.  These were superior conditions, and the Complainant believed that this was the reason why he was not allowed to continue.

The Respondent’s Code of Practice states that ‘it is good practice of an employer to notify an employee of the intention to retire him/her on the contractual retirement date within 6-12 months of that date’.   The Complainant submitted he received no such notification.  The Request to Work Longer Procedure was not followed.  The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with the ground for the decision or the right to appeal.

The Respondent submitted the Rosderra Meats Group has a long-established normal retirement age of 65 years and they implement a legitimate employment policy which is permitted under employment law legislation.

The Adjudication Officer noted the Respondent provided evidence of a legitimate companywide retirement policy. However, there was no evidence that any explanation of refusal of the Complainant’s request was communicated to the Complainant at any stage.

Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant was discriminated against on grounds of his age.

Outcome:

The Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of age and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant the sum of €30,000 in compensation.

Practical Guidelines for Employers:

Employment law prohibits discrimination on grounds of age. Employers are required to objectively justify any retirement age policy that is put in place. Further guidance is set out in the Code of Practice on Longer Working available here. There is an obligation on the employer to present the employee making a request to work longer with the specific objective grounds. The employee should be afforded an opportunity to test these arguments before a final decision is made.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/march/adj-00027036.html