Voluntarily Accepted Role held Non-Discriminatory

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Stroke Group Co-Ordinator from March 2015 until December 2023, when his employment ended. He was 68 years old at that time and worked a 20-hour week (at €16.48 per hour) having previously worked 37 hours per week. He stated that his reduction in hours in October 2022 was presented as temporary and that he continued to work additional hours despite expressing disappointment. Upon reaching 65, the Complainant was encouraged to remain in employment and was offered successive fixed-term contracts, with discussions indicating he could work until age 70. Despite this, he was informed in late 2022 that his role would end under company retirement policy. During his final year, he covered multiple regions while younger employees were recruited at higher salaries. He believed the pay disparity and termination of his employment constituted age discrimination and unequal pay, particularly given his experience and qualifications.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant transferred under TUPE in January 2020 on improved contractual terms, including higher pay and benefits until age 65. When his retirement age was identified, the Respondent facilitated his wish to remain in employment by offering successive fixed-term contracts, all of which were voluntarily accepted. In 2022, a review introduced new roles requiring higher qualifications and broader responsibilities, which carried higher salary scales. The Complainant’s role did not expand in this way. In October 2022, he requested a further extension and was offered a final contract ending December 2023 on reduced hours, which he accepted in writing. The Respondent maintained that he was clearly informed this would be his final contract. Regarding pay, the Respondent asserted there was no underpayment and that higher-paid colleagues were employed in different or expanded roles. A back payment was made as a goodwill gesture at retirement, not as an admission of unequal pay.

The Adjudicating Officer considered separately the dismissal and equal pay complaints. It was accepted that the Complainant’s employment ended because of age, shifting the burden of proof to the Respondent. However, the Adjudicator found that the Respondent had objectively justified the retirement arrangement through legitimate aims, including workforce planning and operational restructuring, and that the Complainant had knowingly signed a final fixed-term contract ending December 2023 without seeking a further extension in that year. Accordingly, the dismissal was not found to be discriminatory on age grounds. In relation to equal pay, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant had established he performed like work to named comparators and that the Respondent had failed to provide objective justification for paying him a lower hourly rate. The evidence showed acknowledgment by the Respondent that Stroke Co-Ordinators were paid at different rates. The equal pay complaint was therefore upheld, while the discrimination in conditions of employment complaint was dismissed.

Employers should:

1. Ensure that retirement practices are clearly documented, consistently applied, and objectively justified by legitimate aims such as workforce planning or organisational restructuring. Where employees are retained beyond a normal retirement age, the basis for each fixed-term extension should be clearly explained in writing, including whether the contract is final.
   
2. Note that in relation to pay structures, employers must be able to objectively justify any differences in pay between employees performing like work. Assertions about qualifications, expanded duties, or market pressures should be supported by documentary evidence such as job descriptions, qualification requirements, benchmarking data, and role evaluations. Without clear evidence, pay disparities are likely to be found discriminatory.
   
3. Ensure that goodwill payments made at or near termination are carefully framed and explained. While intended positively, such payments may be interpreted as admissions of unequal pay if not clearly documented.

The full case can be found here.