Service engineer's mandatory retirement at 65 not age discrimination, WRC rules

The Workplace Relations Commission found there was a mandatory retirement age for service engineers because of the nature of the job and the fact that it is safety-critical, among other things. File photo: iStock

The Labour Court has rejected a claim that having to retire at 65 is age discrimination.

Denis O’Keeffe had, in July 2019, asked to be kept on as a service engineer with Pat O’Donnell & Company after his 65th birthday. He said he had never taken any sick leave and saw no reason why he suddenly needed to stop working for the company when he turned 65.

Management, however, refused his request, stating in writing a few weeks later it was company policy that all service engineers retire on their 65th birthday. And, noting his upcoming retirement, they reminded him in writing about this on November 14, 2019.

The Union Siptu then wrote to the company a few weeks later, requesting he be given an extension of one year to bring him up to the state pension age of 66. This request was refused and his employment duly ceased when he reached the age of 65 on January 21, 2020.

Mr O’Keeffe, who had worked for Pat O’Donnell & Company since 1989, then took the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on February 10, 2020. He claimed he was discriminated against on age grounds because he had to retire at 65.

However, the firm disputed this, maintaining there was “an objectively justified mandatory retirement age” for his category of worker and Mr O’Keeffe was aware of this. He in turn said that although he had received a contract, he had not signed it.

He also said he was aware of one other service engineer who had continued in employment for the company beyond his 65th birthday. And while he didn’t dispute that the company retirement plan states the normal retirement age is 65, he said it also references employees remaining in service after age 65 with the agreement of the company.

In its submission to the WRC, Siptu said there was no objective justification for having a mandatory retirement age. They also pointed to the fact that office staff were regularly allowed to stay on beyond their retirement age of 65.

The WRC decided on November 10, 2020, that Mr O’Keeffe’s complaint was unfounded, but he appealed against that decision to the Labour Court on December 9, 2020. The hearing took place in a virtual setting on August 19, 2021.

In rejecting his appeal, the Labour Court said: “While the Complainant disputed there was a mandatory retirement age, no explanation was offered as to why he looked for an extension if he did not know that retirement at 65 was mandatory.

“The Complainant pointed to only one individual who had worked beyond 65 in support of his contention that a retirement age of 65 was not mandatory.

“But (he) did not contradict the (company’s) evidence that the individual in question had transferred out of his role as service engineer five years before his retirement.

“Based on the evidence before it, the Court finds that on the balance of probabilities there was a mandatory retirement age for service engineers.

“The Court notes the undisputed evidence concerning the nature of the job, the fact that it is safety-critical, the training period required to qualify service engineers, the investment required by the Respondent in terms of training apprentices to the standard they required.

“Taking account of all of these issues the Court is satisfied that a mandatory retirement age of 65 for service engineers in this employment is objectively and reasonably justified.

“In this case, the legitimate aim is to ensure a through-flow of appropriately qualified service engineers and to ensure that employees are not required to continue working until they are unable to perform the duties.”