FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Dispute in relation to requirement to retire at 58 years of age.
BACKGROUND:
2. Laois County Council is charged by statute with operating a fire service for the county. They do so by employing retained fire fighters across the county who are based out of stations in key towns in the county. Each station has a retained Station Officer who is in charge of the operation of the service from his station.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a member, who is employed as a retained Station Officer in Laois County Council Fire Service to have his retirement age put back to 65.
When he was appointed Station Officer in August 1987 his conditions of appointment did not state any age for retirement but stated that he should retire in line with the County Manager's order. At that time the Department of Environment circular letter EL 22/85 applied and it stated at paragraph (i)
"All retained fire service personnel to retire at reaching 55 years of age. The appropriate gratuity to be paid on retirement at age 55 or earlier if certified medically unfit."
The Report of an Expert Group on the Retirement Age in the Retained Fire Service, dated April 2003, and accepted by the parties, provides for a normal retirement age of 55 with the possibility of extension, subject to satisfactory medical reports to age 58.
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 14th July, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th January, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Our member had and has a legitimate expectation that he would continue in employment until he is 65 years of age.
2. The Council has extended the employment of a Station Officer in Stradbally who was appointed with a similar contract to our member. He is still in employment. The Council also extended the employment of a Station Officer in Portarlington.
3. The Union maintain that the concession of this claimwill have no knock-on effect in the County as their member is the last employee of the fire service who has terms that suggest that he could work on until he is 65.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.On foot of an enquiry from the Worker the Council wrote to him in October 2001 and confirmed that his retirement age would be 55 years of age.
2. The Worker does not have a written contract which states that he can remain past the age of 55.
3. The Worker is required to retire having reached the age of 58 in accordance with the provisions of the Report of the Expert Group on the Retirement Age and in accordance with the provisions of his contract of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties in this case.
Taking into account in particular, the fact that the claimant raised this matter as early as 2001, and the history of the claimant's colleague in Stradbally, it is the view of the Court that the claimant's situation is identical to that of his colleague and, in equity, he should be treated no differently and should accordingly have his employment extended until he is 65 years of age, on an exceptional basis.
The Court so recommends.
There should be no implication taken from this recommendation that the binding nature of the Expert Group's report is in any way impugned. The extension to the claimant's contract should be subject in the first place to medical fitness.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
1st March, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.