An Post has been ordered to pay €70,316 to a former employee for discriminating against him because he was over 60.
The order was made by the Equality Tribunal last month after it had heard that an employee, Stanley Ruddy, was told that he could not apply for a new owner-driver scheme, introduced in 2003, because he was over the cut-off age of 60.
Mr Ruddy had worked as a driver with SDS - a section of An Post - from 1980 until his retirement in 2004.
In 2002, SDS got into financial difficulties and looked at ways to reduce costs. The company, in agreement with the Communications Workers' Union (CWU), arrived at measures to reduce staff numbers through incentivised voluntary redundancy.
One of the schemes put forward was an owner-driver one where parting employees could buy a van and work on a self-employed basis for a new company, Transpost. The scheme was advertised to staff in mid-2003.
Mr Ruddy told the tribunal that he expressed an interest in the scheme, but was told by his CWU representative "he could not avail of the scheme because he was over 60". He did not, therefore, apply as he considered it a "futile exercise".
An Post told the tribunal it accepted that an age restriction had been put on the scheme, but said without this restriction "it would have incurred significant costs". It also said that, since Mr Ruddy had not made an official application for the scheme, he did not have the locus standi to maintain his claim.
Mr Ruddy argued that the lump-sum severance payment on offer to him, as a result of his age, diverged greatly from other colleagues with a similar duration of service but who were younger.
The equality officer who heard the case said in her report she was satisfied that, had Mr Ruddy applied for the scheme, his application would have been rejected.
"In the circumstances, I consider it unreasonable to expect the complainant to have made a formal application for the scheme to maintain a locus standi . . . [ so his failure to apply] does not prevent him from maintaining his complaint."
She found that his claim was about the issue of equal pay under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. She said: "The respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of age."
Had Mr Ruddy been allowed to avail of the scheme in 2003, he would have received €92,442, she added. "Instead, he received €22,126 when he retired in December 2004, a difference of €70,316.
"I consider it appropriate that the complainant should be placed in the position he would have been in had the discrimination not occurred."
She ordered An Post to compensate him for this difference.
