A warehouse worker who was forced to retire six months after his 65th birthday has been awarded €15,000 by the Labour Court, which found he had been discriminated against on the basis of his age.
Eugene McEnery had appealed the decision of an adjudication officer at the Workplace Relations Commission who had concluded his claim of discrimination by his former employer, Shannon-based Partners in Logistics, under the Employment Equality Acts, was not well founded.
After a hearing in June, however, the Labour Court has said the company had, by its actions, effectively waived its right to avail of exemptions under the legislation and had then terminated McEnery’s employment on the basis of age after it lost a contract that impacted the part of the business in which he worked.
McEnery had worked for the company since 2003 and told the court he was aware colleagues would have expected him to retire on his 65th birthday, which fell on December 4th, 2023.
READ MORE
He said he was aware of other workers at the company who had been allowed to work on beyond 65, however, and so, as he had no desire to stop working, he requested that October that he also be allowed to stay on.
The company agreed but no formal arrangement was put in place or any new retirement date specified.
The following April there was a suggestion he would have to retire but the possibility of working a three-day week was raised as an alternative. The two sides both claimed the other had made the proposal.
McEnery subsequently said he did not want to work part-time and the company then told him his employment would cease on June 14th.
The company said it had a mandatory retirement age, as contained in McEnery’s contract of employment, but sought to facilitate staff who wanted to stay on beyond their 65th birthdays where it could.
In McEnery’s case, its representatives suggested, the situation was complicated by some health issues he had which had previously prompted him to request that he be exempted from some of the heavier work his role could entail. These had prompted the firm to move him to a different, heated area as the cold in the warehouse was a factor.
The company had, it was said, repeatedly asked McEnery to identify what roles he could perform if his employment was further extended but he disputed having ever asked for any special treatment and declined to engage with the process of identifying particular work he could do.
The Labour Court also heard, however, from the company’s operations director, John Morrissey, who said the loss of the contract had meant there was no longer a need for McEnery’s then role; his health issues meant he could not be moved to some other possible roles, while he did not have the skills required for others.
In the April letter effectively terminating his employment, however, McEnery was informed the company was availing of its right under the terms of his employment contract to oblige him to retire on the basis he had reached 65.
In its decision, the court panel, chaired by Katie Connolly, found that by having allowed McEnery to work beyond his birthday, the company had waived its entitlement to use his contractual retirement age as a justification and its failure to continue his employment by way of a fixed-term contract meant the case did not fall under other, quite specific exemptions contained in the legislation.
It found the company had relied on McEnery’s age to terminate his employment after it had lost the contract and he had therefore been discriminated against. It ordered that he be paid €15,000.
