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 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 informed in February this year that he would have to retire from his €35,000-a-year job as a desktop support agent in the company's internal IT department as soon as he hit his 65th birthday on 1 July.
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 - calling the move by his bosses to impose a mandatory retirement age "unfair".
Denying discrimination, eir’s barrister, Sarah Daly BL, 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% of the eir workforce that was 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 skillset, that he is still seeking work and that his only income, having turned 65 on 1 July 2023, is just over €200 per week in social welfare payments, which is less than 40% 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 1 July and 30 November this year.
A spokesperson for eir said: "We acknowledge the recent decision by the Workplace Relations Commission in the case involving a retired eir employee who challenged the retirement age of 65.
"While we respect the decision of the WRC, eir intends to appeal this ruling to the Labour Court.
"Eir, like most large organisations, has a clearly defined organisational retirement policy, which is grounded in objective reasons, ensuring consistency and fairness across the organisation.
"As the appeal process is underway, we will not be commenting further at this time."
Appeal of ruling is 'disgraceful'
Thomas Doolin described the ruling as "fantastic news".
"This was not just about me, it was for everyone at 65 years of age who feels they should be allowed to work on," Mr Doolin said.
"This had nothing to do money, it was the principle that a man should be able to continue to do his job," he added.
Mr Doolan said: "I feel, in fairness, if a man is willing and his body is able to continue working, he should be able to continue working. You can't expect a man to be climbing poles at 65, but my job is on site."
He said it was "disgraceful" that the company is to appeal the case. He said he still had "loads of friends in there" and remains keen to get back to work.
Employment law experts say the WRC ruling could have implications for other companies.
It seems likely that in the future, employers will need to give much more specific consideration to individual employees or individual roles when it comes to making that justification as to why a mandatory retirement age is legitimate and proportionate," said Declan Harmon, Barrister and member of the Employment Bar Association.
