Background:
The Complainant worked for Irish Rail as a gatekeeper from 27 March 2000 until 2 June 2023, without receiving a contract or terms of employment. His salary was €35,970.71 for 48 hours of work. In 2021, he declined a voluntary severance offer of €75,196.40, believing he could work until age 70. After gate automation in 2017, he moved to Westport Station, performing cleaning and other non-safety duties. In May 2023, he was dismissed at age 66, allegedly due to retirement age policies. He contended that gatekeepers not in the pension scheme were allowed to work until 70, citing past cases and company correspondence supporting this claim. The Complainant presented examples of colleagues who had worked beyond age 66. He argued that his dismissal was solely based on age, violating equality laws. He also pointed out discrepancies in the company's statements about the retirement age. The Complainant submitted that his medical issues did not affect his ability to work and claimed unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissal Act. He sought reinstatement, arguing he lost out on severance, had long service, and was not part of the pension scheme due to his age at the start of employment.

The Respondent stated that Iarnród Éireann reached an agreement allowing resident and non-resident level crossing keepers to join the Wages Grade Pension Scheme, in 2004, initially only available to resident keepers. Special provisions were made for retaining workers past age 65. In 2016, the retirement age for the Wages Grade Pension Scheme was raised to 66, which also applied to CIÉ staff. A limited number of non-pensioned level crossing keepers continued working beyond 65, up to 70, provided they passed medical evaluations and there was a business case for their role. They claimed the Complainant's level crossing at Claremorris was automated in 2017, leading to his redeployment. He was reassigned to train cleaning duties in Westport but was declared unfit for safety-critical roles in 2019. He declined voluntary severance offers and unsuccessfully sought redeployment in 2021. Despite seeking to work until 70, the company maintained a retirement age of 66. The Complainant retired at 66, and the Respondent referenced several Labour Court decisions supporting mandatory retirement ages for safety and operational reasons. In 2021, the Complainant assumed a cleaning role at Westport Station, retaining his pay. The company emphasised that mandatory retirement was outlined in collective agreements and applied consistently.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer found the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Longer Working) (Declaration) Order 2017 outlines best practices for managing employer-employee relations concerning mandatory retirement ages. The Code identifies several legitimate aims for setting such ages, including health and safety and workforce balance. In the reviewed case, the Respondent argued health and safety but failed to establish that the Complainant's role was safety-critical. Other legitimate aims were not argued. Distinctions were made from a previous case involving tram drivers, as the Complainant was not part of a pension scheme and was not in a safety-critical position. Therefore, the Complainant was uniquely disadvantaged and unlawfully retired at age 66 without objective justification. The discrimination complaint under the Employment Equality Act was upheld, leading to compensation as the most suitable redress in this case. The Respondent was to pay the Complainant compensation of the amount of his entitlement to statutory redundancy based on his total service calculated under 1967 Act in addition to pay in lieu of notice calculated under the 1973 Act.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should:

• Review Employment Contracts: Ensure all employees receive written contracts outlining their terms of employment to avoid disputes.
• Understand Age Discrimination Laws: Familiarise yourself with the Employment Equality Act and ensure compliance to prevent age discrimination claims.
• Clarify Retirement Policies: Clearly communicate retirement policies and ensure they align with legal requirements and collective agreements.
• Document Decision-Making Processes: Maintain thorough documentation for decisions regarding retirements, especially those based on age or health.
• Engage in Fair Practices: Ensure that decisions regarding continued employment past retirement age are based on objective criteria, such as capability and business needs.
• Provide Equal Opportunities: Treat all employees equitably regardless of their age, especially regarding voluntary severance and retirement options.
• Review Medical Assessments: When assessing employees' fitness for roles, use objective medical evaluations relevant to their specific duties.
• Consult Collective Agreements: Regularly review collective agreements to ensure compliance with retirement and employment terms.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/september/adj-00048167.html