Telecoms company Eir has been ordered to give a 65-year-old worker forced into retirement earlier this year his job back and pay him for the time he was gone after losing an age discrimination claim.
The decision is understood to be a legal first, as a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator has never before invoked their power to order reinstatement on foot of a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998.
The worker, Thomas Doolin, said he was told in February this year that he would have to retire from his €35,000-a-year job as a desktop support agent in the telco’s internal IT department as soon as he hit his 65th birthday on July 1st.
Mr Doolin, who represented himself in the proceedings, said he “loved” the work and had performed very well at it over the previous four years. He described the move by his bosses to impose a mandatory retirement age “unfair”.
Yes, the US has higher income per capita than Europe, but what is the real measure of a wealthy nation?
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
China the key for tech’s raw materials whether Trump likes it or not
Belfast-based watchmaker Nomadic moves with the times to reinvent retail experience
[ Women in the Irish workplace today: Share your storyOpens in new window ]
Denying discrimination, Eir’s barrister, Sarah Daly, appearing instructed by the company’s in-house counsel Jacqueline Ho, said Eir notified Mr Doolin it was setting a mandatory retirement age “across the organisation” in April 2020, which was accepted by Mr Doolin.
The company’s position was that retiring Mr Doolin was objectively justified on the basis that it needed to “maintain an age balance” and succession planning to avert the risk of large numbers of staff retiring at the same time.
Eir’s HR director, Derek Mangan, also gave evidence that the company would have “potential bureaucratic challenges” and “additional costs” if it could not apply a single retirement age, along with health and safety concerns for the 85 per cent of the Eir workforce based in the field.
However, adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill said the health and safety concerns did not apply to Mr Doolin because he was “exclusively office- and desk-based”.
The “potential cliff-edge scenario” of mass retirements would not arise given that Mr Doolin worked in a “small and non-strategic IT department”.
“I note the complainant’s limited skill set, that he is still seeking work and that his only income, having turned 65 on 1st July, 2023, is just over €200 per week in social welfare payments, which is less than 40 per cent of what he earned [with Eir],” wrote Mr O’Neill.
He noted that it was clear Mr Doolin had an “excellent relationship” with Eir when he worked there and was a “much-valued employee”.
“I therefore believe that the complainant should be allowed to resume his employment,” Mr O’Neill said.
He ordered Eir to reinstate Mr Doolin to his previous job effective from the imposed retirement date.
There was no award for compensation – but the reinstatement order means Mr Doolin is entitled to be paid his salary for the time he was out of work between 1st July and 30th November this year.
It is understood Eir has lodged an appeal of Mr O’Neill’s ruling.
- Sign up for Business push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our Inside Business podcast is published weekly – Find the latest episode here
