In the second of our series of landmark cases we are looking at a recent Equality Tribunal case of Saunders -v- CHC Ireland Limited. This case has set the benchmark in Ireland when it comes to the issue of Employee Retirement. This was the first Irish case to address the matter of Objective Justification for retirement which up to that point was primarily and EU matter.
Background In this case the Equality Officer utilised the ruling provided in the European Court of Justice case of Fuchs and Anr -v- Land Hessen, which in an allegation that a retirement age breached the prohibition on age discrimination from an EU Directive on the Equal Treatment Framework. in this case it was held that the retirement was objectively justifiable. Summary In this case the complainant was a winchman and it was Company policy that winchmen retire at the age of 55 years of age. it was alleged by the employee that their retirement was discriminatory on the basis of age and that this was not objectively justifiable from CHC Ireland. The Equality Officer in this case was obliged to construe Section 34 (4) in light of Article 6.1 of the Directive (2004/78/EC) which highlights that before being able to rely upon a retirement age the Employer must satisfy a court that it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and that the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. On the matter of being able to objectively and reasonably justify the claim, the employer stated that this to
- to protect the health and safety of the Winchmen/Winch Operator,
- to protect the health and safety of the people who require rescue by the Winchmen/Winch Operator and
- to ensure the operational capacity and proper functioning of the professional SAR service
The Equality Officer found that these three reasons amounted to a legitimate aim. The Tribunal then went on to examine whether the means of achieving those aims were appropriate and necessary. CHC Highlighted reasearch to show that the respiratory capacity, musculature and endurance of a person can diminish with age, stating "It states that given the nature of the duties which Winchmen/Winch Operators are required to perform on a regular basis, the physically demanding conditions under which those tasks are performed and the fact it has furnished evidence of a higher incidence of medical impairment of Winchmen/Winch Operators, it has demonstrated that the operation of a retirement age of fifty-five is objectively and reasonably justified." CHC felt that the a mandatory retirement age of 55 was an appropriate and necessary response to achieve the aims set out. The Equality officer felt likewise and stated "I am satisfied that the nature of the tasks involved with the role of Winchman/Winch Operator with the respondent requires a high level of physical capacity and that this standard of capacity diminishes with age" Impact the impact of this case is that employers who set a compulsory retirement age in a contract of employment must be able to objectively justify this by pointing to a legitimate aim of the business and that setting this compulsory age is a legitimate and reasonable way of achieving this aim. Employers will need to keep this in mind when setting the age. it is better for it to be in the contract that not, as without this clause in a contract i makes it very difficult to enforce any compulsory age anyway, however employers much be ready to be questioned on this were a case to be brought against them.
