Background:

The Complainant was 61 years of age when he began his employment with the Respondent as a Desktop Support Agent since 9 September 2019, a role with an annual salary of €35,000 per annum. On 1 July 2020, after the Respondent reviewed its mandatory retirement age and aligned it with its pension schemes, the Respondent set a retirement age of 65. The Complainant was due to turn 65 on 1 July 2023 and was advised of his upcoming mandatory retirement by the Respondent in January 2023. The Complainant made a formal request to work beyond this date and the mandatory retirement age on 8 February 2023, but this was refused based on organisation-wide reasons for the standard retirement age. The Complainant appealed this decision, and this appeal was also denied. The Complainant then was compulsorily retired on 1 July 2023.

The Respondent defended the allegation of unlawful discrimination by attempting to provide objective justification to the prima facie discrimination which is reasonably justified by a legitimate aim. The legitimate aims cited by the Respondent were the need to promote intergenerational fairness and the necessity for effective succession plaining and maintaining age balance in the workforce to uphold the individual dignity of an employee. The Respondent also noted that a deviation from a company-wide retirement age would create bureaucratic challenges and administrative costs. At all times, the Respondent said the mandatory retirement of the Complainant was not in any way related to the Complainant’s job performance.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer found that, given the Complainant’s role as a relatively junior employee on a team in which no evidence was adduced to show any difficulties arising in succession or a “cliff-edge” scenario, that the Respondent’s defence of succession planning and intergenerational fairness were not well-supported. No health and safety concerns arose in the Complainant’s role and the Complainant’s working in the role did not impede the career development of younger colleagues. The Adjudication Officer had regard to the Complainant’s “limited skillset”, ongoing attempts to obtain employment and his minimal income from social welfare payments, as well as the Respondent’s failure to consider the impact of these factors in enforcing its retirement age in this instance. As a result, the Complainant’s complaint was determined to be well-founded. Because of the reportedly positive relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant’s only seeking re-instatement or re-engagement, the Adjudication Officer ordered such re-instatement be made, effective from the date of the Complainant’s retirement.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Given the current legal uncertainty in the area, employers should take the view that any mandatory retirement age should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis if it is challenged by an employee who wishes to continue working.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/november/adj-00045261.html