Credit union worker in court to stop dismissal

A CREDIT union office worker has secured a High Court injunction preventing her employers from dismissing her because she will reach the age of 65 next Monday.

Nuala Murtagh, Shannon Grove, Ballyleague, Roscommon, claims a decision by Lanesboro-Ballyleague Credit Union Ltd, Ballyleague, Longford, to terminate her employment on age grounds — and to replace her with someone younger — is both unlawful and in breach of the contract she entered into when she took up permanent part-time employment in 1997.

Yesterday, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy granted her order restraining the credit union (CU) from implementing the purported dismissal until the matter comes back before the court this Friday. The application was made on a one-side only (ex-parte) basis.

Roddy Horan SC, for Ms Murtagh, said her 1997 contract entitled her to work on provided she was doing a satisfactory job and there was no mention in it of having to retire at 65.

The CU had sought her retirement on a number of grounds, including the “statutory” retirement age of 65 within the civil service even though no such requirement exists any more, counsel said. It was also unlawful to dismiss someone on age grounds under legislation, including under the Employment Equality Act, Mr Horan said.

The CU had made an offer whereby she could apply to continue under a one-year fixed-term contract after December 20, but this was not something she could entertain because it was effectively buying into a variation of her original contract, counsel said. There was also no guarantee she would be successful in such an application, he said.

In an affidavit, Ms Murtagh said last August she received a letter pointing out she would be reaching the age of 65 and to attend a meeting to discuss her future.

At that meeting, with two members of the CU’s liaison committee, she was told that while they did not have a problem with her work they “wanted someone younger to train to do my job and also the office administrator’s job”.

Her solicitors wrote to the CU saying her contract was of an indefinite duration and called on it to rescind the decision to terminate her employment.

She says she, and other colleagues, later received a document outlining the CU’s “retirement policy” which was the first time she was aware there was any such policy and it did not form part of her contract.

She said if she is to lose her job she will be left in very difficult financial circumstances having taken out a 15-year mortgage two-and-half years ago. She would never have done so if she thought she had to retire at 65.