Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  McGrath

St John Ambulance Ireland

Representatives

Alice Maguire Spencer BL instructed by  James P. Evans Solicitors

Christina O’Byrne BL instructed by  Addleshaw Goddard LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00054088-001

10/12/2022

The Complainant stated that he was discriminated against by the Respondent when they decided to terminate his position as a volunteer because he was over 70 years of age.

The Complainant, in his written submissions, stated that he received a letter from the Commissioner of the Respondent in early June 2022, informing him that he had to resign from his position as a volunteer by 25 June 2022 because he was over 70 years of age.

He replied in late June 2022 informing the Respondent that he would not resign because the imposition of an arbitrary age for mandatory retirement was discriminatory. He also asserted that the decision took no account of his ability to carry out the functions of the role given that he met all the certification requirements of the Respondent. He further stated that there was no consultation with the Executive Membership of the Respondent, of which he was a member, prior to the decision being taken and also highlighted that the decision was made with only a couple of weeks’ notice to the volunteers.

The Respondent replied to him on 30 September 2022 and explained that they would not be reversing their decision.

The Respondent indicated that they operate as a charitable organization, offering first aid services and training through a volunteer-based structure.

Further to the introduction of the Charities Governance Code in 2018, the Respondent instigated a review of the organisation and examined both their own organisational structure and its effectiveness. The key issue that arose on foot of this review was the average age of the executive team, which at the time was 75 years old. In addition, the Board also had some concerns about the health and safety of the volunteers due to the physical demands of some aspects of the role.

Considering both of the foregoing factors as well as the requirement for succession planning, the Respondent decided to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 70 years, effective from 25 June 2022, and communicated this to the volunteers, including the Complainant, on 3 June 2022.

The Law

3.(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where 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) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (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) where 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 paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

Section 5 of the Act further states:

A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

Analysis

In the instant case, the Respondent denied that the Complainant was not provided with the services that they offer to the public and highlighted that he was a service provider in his capacity as a volunteer and not a service user. Although not set out in her written submissions, the Complainant’s representative stated that he was provided with training in his capacity as a volunteer, which was denied to him because his position was terminated by the Respondent.

In deciding whether he was discriminated against by the Respondent’s arising from their failure to provide training to him because he was no longer a volunteer, I must consider the spirit and intent of the legislature in the crafting of this Act. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that there was no breach of the Act in circumstances where a service was not denied to the Complainant in his capacity as a member of the public. I also find that it is outside of the scope of the Act to consider allegations of discrimination on the grounds that an organisation may decide not to provide training for a member of the public who seeks to volunteer for them.

I therefore find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination and that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. 

I find that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct for the reasons set out above.