Sports centre worker forced to retire because of her age gets increased compensation

Mary Gavin pointed out that a large number of colleagues continued to work after 65 with one worker with a more physically onerous role having retired in 2015 when she was 74. File photo: iStock

The ALSAA sports centre near Dublin Airport has seen the level of compensation it must pay a former worker over its mandatory retirement age of 65 years increased from €18,400 to €30,000.

The award arises from an unsuccessful Labour Court appeal by ALSAA, the Aer Lingus Social Athletic Association, against a decision by the Workplace Relations Commission that a former receptionist, Mary Gavin, had been discriminated against on grounds of age by the centre’s retirement policy.

Ms Gavin had claimed that she was dismissed from her job as a result of ALSAA’s mandatory retirement age which she argued represented a breach of the Employment Equality Acts. ALSAA did not attend the original WRC hearing but appealed its ruling to the Labour Court, which heard Ms Gavin had worked at the sports centre from 1988 until 2021.

ALSAA case

ALSAA claimed that the receptionist was required to retire at the age of 65 but that her request to be kept on for two further years had been accommodated through two fixed, one-year contracts. However, it said her request for a further extension in January 2021 could not be accommodated as it occurred during the covid-19 lockdown which had serious implications for its finances.

ALSAA said Ms Gavin had not been dismissed but was released from service upon the expiry of her contract in March 2021. The Labour Court heard the sports centre had reached a collective agreement with SIPTU in 2010 which included a specified retirement age of 65.

ALSAA claimed it had a legitimate cause to have a retirement age for staff and that its actions were “appropriate and necessary”. It argued that if Ms Gavin was allowed to continue working indefinitely it would “block an opportunity for Generation X”. Although it had been demotivating for others, ALSAA said it had granted Ms Gavin two additional years in employment in the hope that it would help to prepare her for her retirement.

It claimed a majority of staff working at the reception desk were due to reach the mandatory retirement age within an 18-month period and that such an operational difficulty also presented an opportunity to move to a more balanced age structure with better succession planning.

Mary Gavin's case

Ms Gavin, who was represented by SIPTU, claimed she was fit and eager to remain in her job and said no objective justifications for her mandatory retirement had ever been put to her. She pointed out that a large number of colleagues continued to work after 65 with one worker with a more physically onerous role having retired in 2015 when she was 74.

The Labour Court heard the only other ALSAA staff member forced to retire at 65 had established that the sports centre had breached the Employment Equality Acts, while no employee had been required to compulsorily retire before 2020.

The receptionist claimed she had suffered stress, indignity and financial loss. Ms Gavin said she suffered feelings of isolation and depression and struggled to adapt to the change in her circumstances.

Labour Court ruling

In its ruling, the Labour Court said current law essentially meant that compulsory retirement ages set by employers must be capable of objective justification with evidence that means of achieving them are appropriate and necessary. Labour Court deputy chairman, Tom Geraghty, said it was satisfied that Ms Gavin had no contractual retirement age when she was first employed by ALSAA.

Mr Geraghty said no evidence had been provided to show how the centre’s handbook could be said to have incorporated a compulsory retirement age into the receptionist’s contract of employment. He said any claim by ALSAA that its actions were objectively justified were undermined by evidence that it had applied the mandatory retirement age inconsistently.

The Labour Court ruled that Ms Gavin had been dismissed unfairly because of her age. Mr Geraghty said the court had been very struck by Ms Gavin’s description of the effect of the mandatory retirement on her and had seriously considered reinstating her to her former role.

However, Mr Geraghty said it decided that the preferred remedy of compensation at “an appropriate significant level” was warranted. The €30,000 award follows a ruling in February 2022 that ALSAA must pay another former worker, Doreen Nolan, €28,000 for terminating her employment when she reached 65.