Civil Defence discriminated against men in 70s

A civil defence unit discriminated against two volunteers, aged in their 70s, by making them retire from the service, the Equality Tribunal has determined.

Patrick Dunican was aged 73, and Thomas Spain was aged 71, when the two men received a letter, on the same day, from the Co Offaly civil defence officer advising them of their retirement from the organisation, “pursuant to Circular 7/91” and due to the fact both were over 70 years of age.

Offaly Civil Defence argued that the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the case as both men were volunteers; the volunteer role was not grounded in contract law and did not create legal relations; and the complainants were not employees within the meaning of the acts.

However, acting on his father’s behalf, Michael Dunican pointed out that his father’s involvement with Civil Defence started in the 1960s and that he had been an instructor. His father would attend 30 to 40 events a year, each lasting between four and 10 hours.

He would receive payment of €19.95 for two hours and travel expenses. The payment was liable to income tax and the universal social charge.

Mr Spain’s involvement began in 1970 and he was promoted to instructor around 1979/1980. He would give a class every week, of between two and three hours duration, and occasionally participate in camp events which lasted an entire weekend. He taught the safe evacuation of buildings. He received the same payments as Mr Dunican.

A former civil defence officer, described as Mr C, said the instructors were expected to carry out their duties in person or, if they could not conduct a particular training session for any reason, they were obliged to notify the civil defence officer, who would organise a replacement instructor.

Equality officer Stephen Bonnlander said he was satisfied the fact the two men paid tax and the social charge, and that the work they carried out and the obligation they had to carry it out in person made the contract between the parties a contract of employment.

Mr Bonnlander said they was no dispute that age was the reason the pair’s employment was ended.

He said the retirements occurred when a new civil defence officer for the county reviewed member data and noticed the complainants were both over 70 and should, therefore, be retired according to the Civil Defence’s Office Notice.

“The Civil Defence Act 2002 does not identify a retirement age for civil defence members. The Office Notice, likewise, does not refer to ‘retirement’, but rather states that no member of the organisation can be enrolled if he or she is older than 65 years of age.”

Mr Bonnlander said the notice “does not really state how the age restrictions apply in terms of members who joined before the date it was issued. It only addresses this point in terms of who is considered to be a member of the organisation”. He also said it did not distinguish between instructors and volunteers or different roles to be carried out and was silent on whether its provisions apply to new members only or to all members.

He ruled that Offaly Civil Defence discriminated against Mr Dunican and Mr Spain when it retired them from the organisation without being able to offer an objective justification for the decision. “I therefore order that the respondent pay Mr Dunican and Mr Spain each €1,200, or slightly less than two years’ service as an instructor would have earned them at the time they were retired.”