FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. A Worker claims the right to remain in Retained Fire Service until sixty fifth birthday.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced employment in the Retained Fire Service in 1968 and is currently acting Station Officer. He will reach 60 years of age in November 2008, and is expected to retire from the Service at that time by his Employer, Mayo County Council. The Worker maintains that he has the right to remain in the service until his 65th birthday subject to satisfactory annual medical examinations.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th February, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Claimant joined the Retained Fire Service in 1968 aged 19 years, he understood that the normal retirement age would be on reaching his 65th birthday. This understanding was as a result of common practice at the time.
2. There are compelling personal reasons requiring the Claimant to remain in the Service up to age 65. The concession of the claim has little knock-on effects as at the most 2 or 3 Firefighters in the Service with Mayo County Council could have the potential to pursue a similar claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retirement age for Retained Firefighters in Mayo County Council has
since 1960 been 60 years of age and is covered in Brigade Order No. 2 and dated 3rd May 1960. The Claimant clearly understood that on reaching 60 years he was required to retire from the Service as per his letter dated 23rd April, 2004, to the Council.
2. The potential knock-on effects if this claim was successful would have serious implications for the Expert Group Report of 2003 and also at a national level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered in full the submissions made by the parties, the Court, noting the relevance of Brigade Order No. 2, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th October, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.