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 tram driver with the Respondent and had been so from 12 April 2010. The Respondent is the operator of the Luas light rail system in Dublin. The Complainant’s contract of employment, which was collectively bargained between the Respondent and the Complainant’s trade union, mandated a retirement age of 65. The Complainant alleged that this retirement age was discriminatory on the basis of age.
The Respondent said that its mandatory retirement age had already been the subject of an employment equality claim in a prior case, Transdev Light Rail Limited v Michael Chrzanowski ADE/16/52, and that this decision found that the mandatory retirement age operated by the Respondent was not discriminatory under the Employment Equality Acts. Because of this prior finding, the Respondent said the Complainant’s claim was “estopped”, or legally prevented from happening, due to the legal doctrine of res judicata in rem. This is a rule which provides that when a legal question has been substantively resolved in a prior case, one cannot take a case on the same legal grounds as had been previously decided. The Complainant said the doctrine did not apply with respect to the decision in Chrzanowski.
Outcome:
The Labour Court (Deputy Chair Haugh, Employer Member Marié, Worker Member Treacy) found that the Court’s prior determination in Chrzanowski was a decision in rem, that is, a decision on a larger legal principle not confined to a specific individual case. That decision found that the retirement age imposed by the Respondent was objectively justified for all tram drivers, not just that individual tram driver. As a result, the Court found the Complainant’s complaint to be estopped by the doctrine of res judicata in rem and therefore fails.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
If an employer successfully defends a policy in the WRC and Labour Court, they can depend on that success to defeat any subsequent claim based on the validity of that policy going forward.
The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/wrc/en/cases/2024/january/eda243.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
