The case of Jimmy Murphy v Carlow County Council ADJ-00052056 delivered on 16th December 2024 concerned a Retained Firefighter with considerable service and experience. After reaching the normal retirement age of 55 years, he successfully passed all annual health assessments. He worked on one-year fixed term contracts up to the mandatory retirement of 60 years of age. Prior to the retirement date, he emailed the Chief Fire Officer applying for an extension of his existing contract from 30th December 2023 and outlined in the email his service history and stated he felt he could continue to serve for the foreseeable future and was willing to take a medical, if required.
The Chief Fire Officer replied stating that no further extensions could be granted beyond a Retained Firefighters 60th birthday.
The Complainant employee alleged he had been discriminated against on age grounds and that the mandatory retirement age has not been justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were not appropriate and necessary
The Workplace Relations Commission found that the complainant had been discriminated against on the grounds of age and that the complainant had essentially been “left in limbo” on his extension request. The Adjudicator further noted that the norm for Retained Firefighters was that on at least two previous occasions, extensions were granted and that the exception outlined under Section 34(4) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (as amended) did not apply.
The Complainant in this case sought compensation as a remedy but interestingly the Adjudicator notes that “I would have considered re-instatement as the complainant appears to be fit and healthy and could work up to his 62nd birthday”. The Adjudicator also noted:
“In a recent decision Aer Lingus Social Athletic Association v. Mary Gavin, EDA2312, the Labour Court increased the compensation award of the Adjudication Officer to €30,000 on account of the significant effects on not being retained in her job. Similarly, in this case, the same issues are at play, as the complainant had to leave when fit and healthy at 60 years of age. There was an opportunity for the respondent to review matters at the beginning of May 2024 when the circular issued, which was not taken up”
“The complainant has been in the service since 1994. As it is a community-based emergency service, and he is required to be residing nearby, he is likely to be well known within the community. Given the manner of his unreasonable exit from the service, it most likely had a significant effect on him. I need to balance this with the fact that the Retained Firefighter position is a part-time role.
The Complainant was awarded €15,000 for age discrimination.
Case Learning Point
Employers need to be very careful in managing retirement ages and should have regard to the guidance outlined in the Code of Practice on Longer Working which is published on the Workplace Relations Commission website and the link is provided for here.
This case is worth a read as it summarises recent caselaw in this area.
Advice should always be sought in respect of retirement ages in light of the potential exposure to an age discrimination claim as outlined above.