Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.
Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.
Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.
Background:
The Complainant worked as an educational coordinator with the Respondent, a local development company which provides community services to address social exclusion and poverty, since January 2013. The Complainant’s contract of employment provided for compulsory retirement at the age of 66, and the Complainant was due to reach that age on 11 August 2022. In September 2021 the Complainant applied for a contract extension to ensure he would not be obliged to retire at this time, but this was refused and the Complainant retired against his wishes in August 2022.
The Respondent accepted that compulsory retirement was prima facie discriminatory, but advanced an argument under section 24 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 that the discrimination was objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and that the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. The aim cited by the Respondent was on the basis of intergenerational fairness, and the Respondent argued that the refusal to provide retirement extensions was to avoid redundancies for other staff in the organisation.
Outcome:
The Adjudication Officeraccepted that avoiding redundancies could potentially be a legitimate aim justifying a mandatory retirement age. However, based on the evidence provided in the hearing, it was not clear that this objective justification was expressed to the Complainant at the time of his application for an extension, and there was no evidence which showed this consideration being the one which motivated the Respondent to deny the extension. Because of this, the Respondent was unable to rebut the presumption of discrimination and the Complainant’s complaint was found to be well-founded. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €25,000 as compensation.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
If an employer is attempting to use objective justification for enforcing a mandatory retirement age and refusing a request for an extension, the reason for that objective justification must be decided at the time of the initial decision and communicated effectively to the employee in response to their request to allow them the opportunity to respond to it.
The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/november/adj-00043647.html
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial