An Post to pay €70,000 in age discrimination case
The payment was ordered by the Equality Tribunal after it heard the case taken by Stanley Ruddy, of Johnstown, Navan, Co Meath, who claimed An Post had discriminated against him by refusing him access to an owner-driver scheme, part of the company’s overall restructuring programme in October 2003.
Mr Ruddy’s solicitor — Felim O’Reilly of Felim O’Reilly and SH O’Reilly and Co Solicitors — said a number of Mr Ruddy’s former colleagues, over age 60, are also considering taking cases against their former employer. “There are a number of drivers of the same age who have put in a claim and have come to us to represent them,” he said.
Mr Ruddy had 24 years’ service with SDS, An Post’s special distribution service, when he retired in 2004.
Prior to this, in 2002, SDS had been in a poor financial position. The company had reached an agreement with the Communications Workers’ Union (CWU), of which Mr Ruddy was a member, in relation to restructuring the company. The restructuring package included early or voluntary retirement and the introduction of an owner-driver scheme.
The scheme would result in those availing of it ceasing to be employees of An Post before the natural expiration of their employment and as an inducement to apply, they would receive an immediate lump sum severance payment. They would have an option to seek work with a new company (Transpost) as a self-employed person, again with some assistance from the scheme. It was the lump sum payment that Mr Ruddy took issue with. Successful applicants received a gross incentive payment of €92,442.
Mr Ruddy received €22,126 when he retired in 2004, a difference of €70,316. Mr Ruddy argued that he suffered “a serious detriment” when compared to a colleague who had similar service to him and was able to avail of the owner-driver scheme because he was under 60 years of age.
SDS accepted the owner-driver scheme was restricted to certain employees under 60 years of age, but argued that if it had not placed such a restriction on the scheme it would have incurred significant costs.
The company argued the CWU had accepted the restructuring package, including the owner-driver scheme, as part of a collective agreement. However, there was no mention of an age restriction in the collective agreement; it was referred to only in two internal company documents.
SDS argued if it did not apply the upper age limit of 60, it would have incurred significantly increased costs. However, Mr Ruddy argued that an amount of €577,832 (the additional cost identified by SDS if no age restriction applied to the scheme) could not be regarded as significant when compared with the €52.5 million set aside in the company budget for the restructuring programme.
Vivian Jackson, the equality officer, said he considered it “appropriate that the complainant should be placed in the position that he would have been in had the discrimination not occurred”. He ordered SDS (An Post) to pay €70,316.
A spokesperson for An Post said they would appeal.
