FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FILM HOUSE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. (1) Alleged failure to allow employee to continue in employment until normal retirement
age.
(2) Alleged failure to compensate the employee adequately for consequent loss of salary.
(3) Alleged failure to have regard to the employee's length of service with the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a cleaner by the Rank Organisation in 1971. In 1984 the business was taken over by Film House. The worker claims that it was the custom and practice that staff were retained in employment up to the age of 70 or over provided that they had satisfactory service and were able to carry out their duties. On the 2nd of January, 1992, the worker received a letter stating that as she had reached retirement age her employment would cease on the 1st of February, 1992. The worker was 65 years and 11 months old when she was retired.
The worker claims that she should have been allowed to continue in employment until the age of 70, that, consequently, she has lost a considerable amount of salary and that her employer failed to acknowledge her length of service. The worker referred her claim to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company forwarded a written submission but declined to attend the Labour Court hearing on the 14th of January, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1984 staff were informed that their terms and conditions of employment would not alter. It was the custom and practice that employees with satisfactory service were retained in employment until approximately 70 years old as can be seen from the examples given to the Court. The worker herself was over 65 years old when she was retired.
2. Although the pension scheme mentions retirement at age 65 it also states "in special circumstances the Employer may permit members to remain in service after normal pension date". The worker concerned was not afforded this opportunity.
3. The lack of consultation with the worker when her employment was terminated was most unfair, unnecessary and unacceptable. She had given excellent service to the company and would have been able and willing to continue doing so until she was 70 years old.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the Claimant and to the written submission made on behalf of the Employer.
It appears that some other employees of the company may have been retained in employment to age 70 and beyond but no information was available as to the individual circumstances of those employees. On this account the Court appreciates that the Claimant may have had an expectation that her employment would extend beyond the age at which she was retired.
However, the company pension scheme, of which the Claimant was a member, explicitly provides that normal retirement age is 65. The provision of the scheme which allows for the retention of employees beyond that age is clearly expressed in terms which envisage its invocation in exceptional circumstances and at the discretion of the Employer. The Claimant did not seek to invoke this provision at the time of her retirement nor is there any information before the Court which would suggest that there were exceptional circumstances in which it should have been utilised in her case.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st January, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.