ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001949

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Shift Maintenance Fitter	Manufacturing Company

Representatives

Ger Mooney Connect Trade Union

Mairead Crosby Ibec

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00001949	06/11/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Date of Hearing: 19/08/2024

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker wants to have his retirement age extended to age 68.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker has been employed as a Maintenance Fitter in the employment for the past 24 years. The issue is that the Employer won’t allow him to work until he is 68 which is two years more than what is presently agreed. He was elected shop steward in 2008 and held that position for 11 years. It is submitted that the Company would agree that in that position he was helping to solve many problems to the benefit of workers and the company. He acknowledges that the Company has been good to his family, his wife worked there and his son served his time as an Electrician and still works there.

On 5th August 2023, he met with the HR Manager and requested to work until he was 68. The Manager told him that Company policy was that employees retired at age 65. However, they were prepared to give him a fixed term contract of one year. The Worker feels that by remaining in the employment until age 68 he could be of assistance as there is a shortage of skilled labour and there were two retirements in his area in June 2024. The knowledge and experience he has built up over the years could be a major help in the training of new crafts and he could cover shifts.

It is submitted that allowing people to work longer is being encouraged by Government, there is a bill going through the Dail which will raise the normal retirement age to 66. Employees can work to 70 when they can get an enhanced pension.

The Worker has gone through procedures to appeal the decision and has signed the new contract under protest. He wishes to work until he is 68, he is healthy and fit to follow his occupation. It is submitted that nowhere in his original contract of employment or in the Employee Handbook does it say that the worker has to retire at age 65.

In the Code of Practice on longer working 2017, the Employer must show objective justification to set a retirement age. It is requested that the Company reconsider and allow the Worker to work until he is 68 on his current terms and conditions.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer employs over 1,600 staff and works on a 24 hour day, 7 day week basis with varying shift patterns. On his retirement date in 2024, the Worker was issued with a post retirement fixed term contract for one year which expires on 30th April 2025. When he enquired about staying on post retirement, the Worker was advised that Company policy had been put in place and that employees wishing to stay on had been issued with a one year fixed term contract. The Worker appealed this and reluctantly signed the one year contract stating he was in dispute with the Company as he wished to remain in the employment until age 68.

The Respondent argues that the retirement age is objectively justified for the reason of workforce planning.

The Respondent maintains that the retirement age is 65 and this is contained in the Company Retirement policy as a contractual retirement age:

The company contractual retirement age is on the last day of the month where an employee reaches their 65th birthday.

The post retirement fixed term contract which the employee signed on 30 April 2024 also states that the normal retirement age in the company is 65 and that the parties agreed that the employee retired on the last day of the month where he reached his 65th birthday.

S.I. 600/2017 WRC code of practice on longer working states that compulsory retirement ages set by employers must be capable of objective justification both by the existence of a legitimate aim and evidence of achieving that aim. Examples of a legitimate aim include:

Intergenerational fairness (allowing younger workers to progress), Health & Safety, Creation of a balanced age structure and Succession Planning.

It is argued that the normal retirement age of 65 in the company is objectively justified to achieve these aims.

The Employer strongly argues that the retirement age of 65 is an implied term in the employee’s contract and that he knew this to be the case, and this knowledge led him to request an extension. It is argued that the Employer has behaved reasonably and has demonstrated flexibility by allowing some employees upon request to work for an additional year on a post retirement fixed term contract. It is further argued that should his claim to work until the age of 68 be conceded this will cause an untenable impact for the Company. There is a large workforce and approximately 10% are due to retire in the next 5 years.

The Company strongly submits that in line with the Company Retirement Policy, the one year post retirement contract was fair and reasonable and there cannot be any further extensions.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I note the salient points made by the Worker and his Representative about developments where workers are working and will work past the age of 65 and I have sympathy with the Worker’s predicament where he strongly feels he should be retained by the company until age 68. The Company currently has a policy that allows for a one-year post retirement fixed term contract. I note the point made by the Employer in this case that should the Worker’s claim be conceded it would cause an untenable impact as there are a large number of employees due to retire within the next five years. To recommend that the Worker in this case be retained in the employment to age 68 would interfere with the Company policy, would likely cause repercussive effects and have collective implications. For these reasons, I cannot recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

Dated: 4th October 2024