Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jimmy  Murphy

Carlow County Council

Representatives

SIPTU

Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00063846-001

31/05/2024

Mr. Murphy, the complainant is a Retained Firefighter with considerable service and experience having commenced his employment in 1994. After reaching the normal retirement age of 55 years, he has successfully passed all annual health assessments. He worked on one-year fixed term contracts up to the mandatory retirement of 60 years of age which for him was 30th December 2023. Prior to the retirement date, he emailed the Chief Fire Officer on 17th December 2023 applying for an extension of his existing contract from 30th December 2023. He outlined in the email his service history and stated he felt he could continue to serve for the foreseeable future and was willing to take a medical, if required.

On 20th December 2023, the Chief Fire Officer replied and copied Circular LG (P) 02/2020, stating that no further extensions could be granted beyond a Retained Firefighters 60th birthday.

The complaint is that he was discriminated against on age grounds and not in compliance with Section 34(4) of the Act. It is claimed the mandatory retirement age has not been justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary. The respondent representative denies the complainant has been discriminated against on age grounds.

History of Mandatory Retirement Age

In 1985, a compulsory retirement age of 55 years for Retained Firefighters was introduced at national level as a result of a lengthy negotiation process engaged in by the then LGMSB representing local authority managers and trade unions representing the Retained Firefighters. This arose from a Labour Court Recommendation on phasing in, over a two-year period, of a compulsory retirement age of 55 years and a scheme of retirement gratuities.

In August 2002, this issue was back in the Labour Court and a Recommendation (LCR 17223) issued as follows-

‘Whilst the claim is before the Court under the Industrial Relations Acts, any resolution of the dispute cannot be on terms contrary to domestic or EU legislation. Furthermore, the need to maintain a blanket retirement age of 55, from a health and safety perspective, should be objectively assessed by the parties with the assistance of suitable experts. The Court recommends that the parties establish an expert working group to carry out a review of the present retirement age having regard to the factors referred to above. The group should commission such expert assistance as it considers necessary and should report within 12 months. If necessary, the matter may be referred back to the Court after this group have reported. In the interim, the parties should agree a uniform extension period of 3 months for the purpose of training new personnel.

In April 2003, the Expert Group determined the mandatory retirement age should increase from 55 to 58 years of age and outlined how this change should be implemented.

Significantly, a term of reference in the Report states as follows-

The Expert Group will report by the 31st March 2003. The uniform extension period of three months referred to in LCR 17223 will apply from that date. No existing Retained Firefighter will be required to retire at age 55 will be retired on age grounds prior to 30th June 2003.

In November 2003, Circular Letter LG(P) 19/03 issued which contained the findings of the Expert Group Report. There was no implementation date as the uniform extension period was in place, and the Circular confirmed the arrangements already in place.

The process for extensions required medical reports for each year from 55 years of age onwards. An Occupational Health Specialist was a member of the Expert Group along with management and trade union nominees. The Expert Group identified and examined occupational health studies concerning Firefighters.

On 31st January 2020, a WRC Agreement was reached which allowed for a further extension, as follows-

·       It is proposed that the existing provisions for retirement age for Retained Firefighters shall be amended to increase the existing option to extend from age 58 to age 60.

·       The mechanism of the retirement scheme as it currently applies will remain unchanged.

The above agreement was again followed by a later Circular LG(P) 02/2020 of December 2020. This circular referred to an immediate implementation date although as there was ‘Agreement in principle’ from January 2020, there was a lead-in period. The LGMA’s supplementary submission states that this extension was an emergency response to the Covid pandemic and issues arising in the ability of local authorities to recruit and retain with the restrictions of the pandemic.

On 24th August 2023, the WRC Settlement Agreement on the Retained Firefighters industrial dispute included the following under the heading of –‘Retirement Age’-

‘The Commission notes the intention of the union side to pursue a voluntary increase in the current retirement age. The Commission further notes that management will not object to the pursuit of same within the confines of current public sector policy on retirement in emergency services. Management will, where appropriate, advocate in support of this.’

On 5th September 2023, SIPTU wrote to the LGMA accepting the WRC proposals and sought a meeting on other elements including ‘Social Protection and retirement age’.

On 11th October 2023, a meeting took place between SIPTU and LGMA. Neither side has submitted written details of what was discussed on the retirement age issue at this meeting.

On 13th March 2024, there was a letter from SIPTU to alert the Minister that Firefighters were not referred to when there was an announcement to increase the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 62.

On 3rd May 2024, Circular LG(P) 04/2024 issued which increased the mandatory retirement age of Retained Firefighters to 62 years. The implementation was ‘with immediate effect’.

The complainant’s representative highlighted the lack of reasoning as there was no meeting with the complainant to consider his request for longer working. It was submitted that the retention of experienced staff should be a priority.

Each time the mandatory retirement age has increased, there has been a lack of clear rationale and reasoning. The retirement age has not been implemented consistently across the country. When the retirement age increased to 58 years in 2003, and 60 years in 2020, it was not objectively justified.

When full-time fire services were introduced in two North Dublin Stations, the maximum retirement age was extended to 65 years of age for these staff.

The representative set out the legal arguments and referred to the test established in Donnellan v. Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 67.

Reliance was placed on the IHREC Guidelines on Retirement and Fixed Term Contracts of April 2018 that the test which should relate to a public policy area.

The Code of Practice on Longer Working Order 2017 was relied on as it set out examples of legitimate aims. It was submitted that there were no details of the legitimate aim and no research on the appropriate mandatory retirement age. There was no process afforded to the complainant on his request for longer working, as per the Code.

The representative referenced CJEU case law along with UK and Irish case law.

The representative submitted that ‘Employment Equality Law, Second Edition, Bolger, Bruton, Kimber’ stated that other physical tests may be more appropriate to assess a suitable retirement age.

The case of Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland, and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20 was distinguished from the facts of this case, particularly as it involved a legislative retirement at 70 years of age whereas it is 60 years in this case.

The mandatory retirement age was extended on 3rd May 2024. The complainant’s contract could have been extended to facilitate his continued employment from 30th December 2023 onwards.

The respondent representative outlined the history of the incremental increases in the mandatory retirement age. Their position is that the mandatory retirement of 60 years of age was in place as per Circular LG (P) 02/2020 and these terms were applied to the complainant. The representative submitted that this Circular has been implemented consistently within Carlow County Council as no other Retained Firefighter has been allowed to work beyond 60 years of age. The new Circular and Regulation now in place, apply from May 2024, after the complainant’s earlier mandatory retirement. It was submitted that the respondent acted in accordance with the governing Circulars in place for the sector.

The complainant has been granted extensions up to age 60. The most recent fixed term contract is a binding agreement which limits the complainant’s employment to one-year up to his 60th birthday.

The representative outlined that different treatment on age grounds shall not constitute discrimination when justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving this are appropriate and necessary. The aim is the need for physical and mental abilities and that these can diminish with age.

He submitted that the Employment Equality Act is compliant with the directive. Reliance is placed on CJEU cases where member states have imposed mandatory retirement ages where appropriate. The submission concluded by referencing Mallon which supported the concept of mandatory retirement ages where appropriate.

In reliance of the exception to discriminate on age grounds as per Section 34(4) of the Act, the respondent relies on the following as legitimate aims.

·       ‘Proper functioning of fire services reflecting that in fields of work where physical and mental abilities are crucial for the role, it will be more likely that setting maximum retirement ages for those roles will be proportionate and justified’

·       ‘Physical capability insofar as physical inadequacies in the exercise of those duties may have significant consequences for fire service employees and members of the public. It follows that the possession of particular physique may be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement for the pursuit of the role.’

The Law

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation as transposed into Irish law by the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.

Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Act provides:

“For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of 6 paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are— […]

(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as “the age ground”)”.

Section 34(4) of the Employment Equality Act transposes article 6 of the Directive and provides for exceptions relating to, inter alia, the age ground:

“Without prejudice to subsection (3), it shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground to fix different ages for the retirement (whether voluntarily or compulsorily) of employees or any class or description of employees if —

(i)                  it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and

(ii)                the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Findings

The facts of this case are not in dispute. The legal point to be decided is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant by imposing a mandatory retirement of 60 years of age. The respondent is relying on Section 34(4) of the Act which allows for the fixing of a retirement age under certain circumstances. The complainant’s representative relies on the lack of reasoning and rationale in fixing the mandatory retirement age along with the means used to achieve that aim. Both parties have relied on CJEU case law along with domestic law. The recent Supreme Court decision in Mallon is relied upon by the respondent and distinguished to its own unique facts by the complainant representative.

Mallon Case

Undoubtedly, this case is relevant as the court carried out a detailed analysis on Public Sector Mandatory Retirement Ages.

At paragraph 42, the judgment refers to Cinneide’s paper on ‘Age Discrimination and the European Court of Justice: EU Equality Law Comes of Age (January 2009)’ that the court ‘has given a relatively wide margin of discretion to Member States wishing to make use of age-based distinctions, where States can make a reasonably strong case to support the use of such distinctions.’

Later at paragraph 89, it states- ‘It is clear from the CJEU jurisprudence that the state enjoys a “broad discretion” in this context and its judgment as to how best to balance broad and competing socioeconomic considerations- including by no means limited to the rights and interests of persons required to retire, potentially against their will- must accordingly be given very significant weight’.

At paragraph 62, the judgment quotes from Palocios de la Villa (C-45/09), as follows-

‘A measure providing for mandatory retirement (whether a legislative measure or a provision of a collective agreement) may be justified even where it does not identify the aim being pursued: the “general context of the measure concerned” may be relied on to identify the underlying aim of the measure for the purpose of judicial review of its legitimacy and whether the means put in place to achieve that aim were appropriate and necessary.’ 

Later in paragraph 62 under (11) it states ‘Legislation will be appropriate for achieving the objective pursued only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain it in a consistent and systematic manner.’

At paragraph 70 of Mallon, it states- ‘McKechnie J had discussed the issue of individual assessment earlier in his judgment, expressing the view that ‘where there are large numbers of people involved and it would be impractical to test every person then it may be proportional to use some form of ageproxy.’ “Conversely”, he went on, “where there are few people to assess and such could be done relatively easily it would not be proportionate to use blanket proxies so as to determine personal characteristics”.

Another relevant consideration appears in Mallon at the end of paragraph 76-

‘Nothing in the CJEU jurisprudence suggests that an employer is required to justify the application of a general retirement rule to an individual employee. Such a requirement would, of course, substantially negate the benefit of having such a rule in the first place..’

Paragraph 104 affords a margin of appreciation to the appropriate authority who is “better placed than the courts to assess what is necessary or appropriate for the effective operation of the coronial system”. Courts have a limited role insofar as they are only concerned with whether the competent authority’s judgment appeared to be unreasonable.

This analysis in Mallon of CJEU jurisprudence is relevant to this case. As section 34(4) of the Act gives the State this inherent authority, a balance is required to ensure ulterior considerations of a discriminatory nature are not permitted under the guise of this exemption. I will now proceed to deal with the two parts of the test.

Objectively and Reasonably Justified by a Legitimate Aim

The Expert Group Report included research and engagement from a range of stakeholders on the legitimate aim and objectives in 2003. There is no evidence that the State through its agencies imposed a mandatory retirement age, without involving experts and other stakeholders.

Although it was argued that the legitimate aims were not precise enough, in Bord Na Mona v. Kenny, EDA2232, the Labour Court relied on Fuchs and Kohler v. Land Hessen (C-159/10, C-160/10) where it stated-

‘In the absence of such precision, it is important that other elements, taken from the general context of the measure concerned, enable the underlying aim of that measure to be identified for the purposes of review by the courts of whether it is legitimate and whether the means put in place to achieve it are appropriate and necessary’.

This approach is consistent with paragraph 62 of Mallon quoted above that the general context of the legitimate aim can be sufficient. Paragraph 104 is also relevant as it affords a margin of appreciation to the relevant authority who is “better placed that the courts to assess what is necessary or appropriate for the effective operation of the coronial system”.

The history of the extension is relevant as the Labour Court recommended the establishment of an Expert Group in 2003 from a health and safety perspective. The legitimate aim put forward by the respondent representative was the need for physical and mental abilities in the Fire Service. In the LGMA supplementary submission it refers to recruitment and retention requirements in 2020. The complainant’s representative also referred to recruitment and retention in their submission and during the course of the hearing.

As increased health and fitness have resulted in longer life spans among the general population, it has been recognised that Retained Firefighters can continue in the service for longer. This was also a conclusion in the Expert Group Report that ‘The nature of the Retained Fire Service, and the structure of the crew at each incident are such that it is accepted that there is some accommodation of ‘older’ Firefighters at incidents, particularly fires.’

The Code of Practice for Longer Working includes a heading ‘Utilising the Skills and Experience of Older Workers’ which also encourages employers on good practice to retain older and experienced workers in employment.

For the reasons outlined, I find that the mandatory retirement age was objectively and reasonably justified by legitimate aims.

Consideration now needs to take place on the second part of the test as to whether the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary.

Means of Achieving Aim are Appropriate and Necessary

The Mallon case provides limited insight into what is appropriate and necessary. In that case, there was reliance on the fact that retirement at 70 years was enshrined in legislation and was always known to Sheriffs. Obviously, a mandatory retirement at 70 years does not pose the same financial risk to retirees and is now the standard maximum retirement age across the public sector. What distinguishes this case from Mallon is that the retirement age moved incrementally from 55 to 58 years, 58 to 60 years, and then from 60 to 62 years. The increases outlined were part of a collective agreement/joint consideration although for the increase to 62 years (on 3rd May 2024), there was no evidence of consideration of the means that were appropriate and necessary.

In Mallon at paragraph 62 as above, there is a reference to “general context of the measure concerned”. This indicates that context is relevant to the legitimate aim along with the means under which it is put in place.

In Donnellan v The Minister for Justice & ors [2008] IEHC 467 Mc Kechnie J held:

‘Any discrimination with regards to age must, as put by that Directive, serve a legitimate aim or purpose, and the means taken to achieve that purpose must be appropriate and should go no further than is necessary, i.e. they should be proportionate.’

General Context

The introduction of the new mandatory retirement age was ‘with immediate effect’ on 3rd May 2024. This differed from the previous extensions that provided for a lead-in period. The previous extensions and circulars were not specific on implementation dates. Indeed, when the age was increased from 55 in 2003, there was a holding period which the Labour Court referred to as ‘a uniform extension period of 3 months for the purpose of training new personnel.’ 

The next extension from 58 to 60 years referred to ‘Agreement in principle’ in the Circular which referenced the WRC Agreement in place from 31st January 2020. In the supplementary submission, the respondent representative states that the timing of this extension related to an emergency response due to Covid and the ability of local authorities to recruit and retain within the restrictions of the pandemic.

In summary, the mandatory age increased in 2003 through the Expert Group Report and there was a lead-in period. Again in 2020, there was a lead-in period from January to December 2020. Although the respondent representative submits the extension in 2020 was an emergency response due to Covid, there is no reference to Covid in any documentation. The National Emergency Team was created on 27th January 2020, so the agreement reached on 31st January 2020 was a rapid response when required to facilitate the retention of Retained Firefighters.

The most recent extension was flagged in August 2023. The unions and management were supporting a further extension, although the circular did not issue or take effect until 3rd May 2024. In the supplementary submissions received which cover this period, there is no evidence to show the means of extending the age were considered in any way.

The complainant must have been aware of a possible further extension as this was an element of the agreement balloted on in August/September 2023. SIPTU wrote to the LGMA in September 2023 seeking a meeting. The mandatory retirement issue was one of many issues to be progressed following the dispute. There was no further engagement other than a meeting in October 2023 which has not been detailed. In March 2024, after the government announced an increase to 62 years for Gardai, Prison Officers and Defence Force staff, SIPTU wrote to the minister requesting why ‘Firefighters’ were not mentioned.

For the complainant, even though he was aware of retirement at 60 years, he was also aware of agreement in principle to increase this. He applied for another extension before his 60th birthday. He was refused and copied on the December Circular LG(P) 02/2020. This circular states in the 4th paragraph- ‘Agreement in principle has been reached between the management and union sides on this recommendation. ……….’ This was reference to the earlier WRC Agreement of 31st January 2020.

On 3rd May 2024 when Circular LG(P) 04/2024 issued, it did not contain similar wording as there had been no consideration on the means of implementation with no lead-in period.

Normally, due to national engagement on the means of implementation, there was no requirement to engage with individuals. However, there was no consideration of the means of implementation, this time around.

Code of Practice on Longer Working Order 2017

The complainant representative submitted there was no process afforded to the complainant leading up to his mandatory employment.

The code of practice sets out the best practice under the following headings.

·       Utilising the skills and experience of older workers.

·       Objective justification of retirement.

·       Standard retirement arrangements.

·       Requests to work longer.

The code also sets out a procedure to be followed and the relevant section is on page 7 point (4) of the code as follows-

(4) Where the decision is to refuse the request, the grounds for the decision should be set out and communicated in a meeting with the employee. This will help the employee to understand why the request has not been granted, and give the employee confidence that his/her case has been given serious consideration and that there are good grounds for refusing the request. The application should have recourse to an appeals mechanism, for example though the normal established grievance procedure in the organisation.

The complainant was not afforded this process. As per Mallon, there was no requirement if there was a joint process at national level although there was not. In compliance with the Code of Practice on Longer Working, the Chief Fire Officer/Senior Executive Officer should have met with the long-standing employee and/or queried whether a joint process was already underway at national level. At this stage, both were aware that a further extension of the mandatory retirement age was imminent.

I note in Mallon at the end of paragraph 76 it states- ‘Nothing in the CJEU jurisprudence suggests that an employer is required to justify the application of a general retirement rule to an individual employee. Such a requirement would, of course, substantially negate the benefit of having such a rule in the first place..’

Mallon however can be distinguished from this case as the legislation was clear and in place from the outset on mandatory retirement age at 70 years. In this case, the age was moving incrementally and there was a custom of joint engagement on the means of implementation. In the absence of engagement at national level, it was reasonable for the complainant to expect a local process on his extension request, as per the Code. There was already in place a yearly process to assess his fitness which he had agreed to undertake.

In the Labour Court case of Revenue Commissioners v. Mc Donnell (EDA2111) reliance was placed on a Circular which excluded the complainant from working till 70 years as it was introduced after his retirement date. However, this case is different given the complainant was retired at 60 and the norm was to allow for a lead-in period. The complainant in this case was requesting an extension limited to one year and which was granted every year from his 55th birthday. It is regrettable that no consideration either nationally or locally took place to use the normal medical assessment on an interim basis pending the imminent extension.

Current Application of Circular

The complainant is still 60 years of age and there is a Circular in place since 3rd May 2024 which allows for Retained Firefighters to continue to 62 years subject to an annual fitness assessment. The reason relied on for no extension in December 2023 was the Circular in place at the time with retirement at age 60. With this obstacle removed in May 2024, the complainant has not been facilitated to return and work up to his 62nd birthday. The Circular for some reason did not address those that had just exited and unsuccessfully applied for extensions. The complainant would have likely considered a return as he still had more than a year and a half to his 62nd birthday. Former colleagues who turned 60 years after 3rd May 2024 are still the same age as the complainant and can continue till 62. This demonstrates the means of implementation were not appropriate or considered to any degree.

Another alternative was an interim contract pending the increase in age, particularly as management and unions were supportive of an increase from August 2023. The respondent also had the benefit of assessing the complainant’s fitness as per the four previous assessments. The scenario that unfolded for the complainant signalled that his skills and experience were not required particularly as no practical means were considered, at any stage.

The respondent representative relies on Palocios de la Villa (C-45/09), as authority to demonstrate that mandatory retirement ages were not discriminatory. I am not convinced of this, as Palocios had its own context where pension entitlement automatically followed at 65 years and the legitimate aim in that case of access to the labour market is completely different to the legitimate aim in this case. Palocios though is of assistance as follows, as it refers to member states finding the right balance of interests (par 71), the financial position of workers (par 73), along with the specific features of the job (par 74) as below:

71 It is, therefore, for the competent authorities of the Member States to find the right balance between the different interests involved. However, it is important to ensure that the national measures laid down in that context do not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary to achieve the aim pursued by the Member State concerned.

73 Furthermore, the measure cannot be regarded as unduly prejudicing the legitimate claims of workers subject to compulsory retirement because they have reached the age-limit provided for; the relevant legislation is not based only on a specific age, but also takes account of the fact that the persons concerned are entitled to financial compensation by way of a retirement pension at the end of their working life, such as that provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the level of which cannot be regarded as unreasonable.

74 Moreover, the relevant national legislation allows the social partners to opt, by way of collective agreements – and therefore with considerable flexibility – for application of the compulsory retirement mechanism so that due account may be taken not only of the overall situation in the labour market concerned, but also of the specific features of the jobs in question.

The last paragraph above is particularly relevant as it replicates the joint process of increasing the mandatory retirement age for Retained Firefighters. Regrettably, no joint process or consideration occurred on this occasion, or even individually for the complainant.

Adjudication Decision ADJ-00050118

The respondent relies on the above decision which found that a ‘Retained Firefighter’ was not discriminated against on age grounds. I have reviewed that complaint which was received by the WRC on 13th February 2024. That complaint differs from this complaint which was received by the WRC on 31st May 2024. I had documentation and supplementary submissions available from August 2023 up to the Circular of 3rd May 2024. The documentation over this period was not available in ADJ-00050118 as in this case. This documentation assisted on whether appropriate considerations were given to the means under which the age would be extended.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no evidence that appropriate and necessary means were considered, even though the norm was to do so. I am conscious of Paragraph 104 of Mallon on the margin of appreciation to be afforded to the appropriate authority. Nevertheless, I view the lack of consideration of any appropriate means as unreasonable. The complainant was left in limbo with no consideration on his extension request, either nationally or locally. The norm for Retained Firefighters was that on at least two previous occasions, extensions were granted without the requirement for a Circular of implementation. These circumstances differed from the Revenue case referred to earlier.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that section 34 (4) which allows for an exception to discriminate on age, has not been complied with. The respondent has not provided evidence that the means of achieving the legitimate aim were appropriate and necessary. As on the previous occasions when the age increased, there was no lead-in period considered. There was no interim extension of his contract considered. Also, there was no consideration to facilitate his return or apply the circular retrospectively once the Circular issued.

I find that the complainant was discriminated against on age grounds.

Redress

In considering redress, one of the options is to order re-instatement or re-engagement with or without compensation. I would have considered re-instatement as the complainant appears to be fit and healthy and could work up to his 62nd birthday. The complainant though has sought compensation.

Therefore, section 82 (1) (c) of the Act requires that I consider the effects of the discrimination. In a recent decision Aer Lingus Social Athletic Association v. Mary Gavin, EDA2312, the Labour Court increased the compensation award of the Adjudication Officer to €30,000 on account of the significant effects on not being retained in her job. Similarly, in this case, the same issues are at play, as the complainant had to leave when fit and healthy at 60 years of age. There was an opportunity for the respondent to review matters at the beginning of May 2024 when the circular issued, which was not taken up.

The complainant has been in the service since 1994. As it is a community-based emergency service, and he is required to be residing nearby, he is likely to be well known within the community. Given the manner of his unreasonable exit from the service, it most likely had a significant effect on him. I need to balance this with the fact that the Retained Firefighter position is a part-time role.

For the reasons outlined, I decide that the respondent should pay compensation of €15,000 to the complainant.

I find that the complainant was discriminated against on age grounds. As redress, I decide the respondent should pay compensation of €15,000 to the complainant. This award is compensation and is not in the nature of remuneration.

Mandatory Retirement