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 was a catering assistant employed by the Respondent since August 2005 and working on a contract of indefinite duration (a permanent contract). In October 2021 the catering staff of the Respondent were advised of the introduction of a group income protection plan and voluntary life assurance plan to be added to all pension plans held by that staff. The plans were to be rolled out automatically unless any person “opted out” and were due to benefit approximately 3,000 employees, according to the Respondent.
The Complainant wished to avail of this benefit and so took no action. When the Complainant’s pay did not include deductions for the plans, the Complainant enquired as to why this was the case. The Respondent advised the Complainant that the group plan excluded any employees 66 years of age or older. The Complainant told the Respondent’s employee relations manager that this was discriminatory and that alternative arrangements should be made to facilitate her participation. The Complainant then filed a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Respondent said the age limits to the plan were commonplace in the market and that including the Complainant and the approximately 20 other employees who were excluded based on age would increase costs significantly for the other members of the scheme.
Outcome:
The Adjudication Officer observed that unlike all other forms of direct discrimination, different treatment on the grounds of age can be objectively justified. The Adjudication Officer found that the justification provided by Respondent met this standard by being objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim. As a result, the Adjudication Officer found the Complainants claim not well-founded.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
Age discrimination claims can be objectively justified if the discriminatory policy is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim.
The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/october/adj-00038779.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