Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Brendan  Coone

Bus Eireann

Representatives

  Appeared in person

John Sheridan Bus Eireann

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-00069045-001

31/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00069045-002

31/01/2025

On 31 January 2025, the Complainant, a Lay Litigant and Bus Driver submitted two complaints of Discrimination on age ground against the Respondent, A Transport Company.

At that point he expected to have his employment terminated on reaching his 70th birthday on May 2, 2025.

CA-00069045-001 Discrimination by my employer on grounds of age

Mr. Coone was requested to review his complaint about missing details, and he repopulated this on 17 February 2025.

The complaints were served on the Respondent on 26 February 2025.

 On March 3, 2025, Mr. Graham Fagan, Director of Human Resources, took issue with the complaints and disputed an employment relationship with the Complainant.

I should also confirm at this time that the complainant, Mr. Coone, is not employed by Bus Éireann but is, rather, employed by a contractor company providing school bus services to Bus Éireann. As such, Bus Éireann is not correctly identified as the Respondent in this matter.

When the complainant was appraised of this response, he clarified that he had received advice that as the Respondent was responsible for the rule, they were the correct respondent.

The Parties were invited to hearing scheduled for 30 May 2025.

The Complainant sought that two parallel complaints submitted against a separate respondent, ADJ 57970 and 56403, be linked with the instant case for efficiency.

On May 1, 2025, the Complainant received the following confirmation of all three cases being heard on the same day.

I refer to the above-mentioned complaints and inform you the Adjudicator presiding over these matters has agreed they can be heard on the same day 30th May, ADJ-00057165 at 10:00 and the remaining two ADJ-00056403 & ADJ-00057970 at 13:00. You will receive Notice of Hearing confirming this shortly.

The Complainant sought permission from the Respondent to continue driving the school bus past his 70th birthday and pending the Adjudication outcome.

On May 2, 2025, Mr. Fagan responded to the Complainant directing him to his current employer.

…. I can confirm our current policies do not allow any driver to continue to drive beyond 70 years of age, which is medically supported by our CMO. We have advised all contractors of this and assure you this is to manage any elevated medical risk identified by our CMO as potential past 70 years of age. That being said, as you are not an employee of Bus Eireann, you should consult with your own employer as they may have other work available to you and any decision to cease your employment is one for them entirely.

WRC guidance for preparation for hearing was issued to the complainant at his request on 12 May 2025

On 16 May, I wrote to each party seeking preparatory written submissions to assist in my Inquiry.

I sought any documents which might link the parties in employment. I also sought a copy of the collective Agreement referred to in the Complainants second complaint.

Mr Coone commenced employment as a bus driver contracted to Bus Eireann school bus service on 26 November 2018. He came to hearing to extend his tenure at that service due to familial responsibilities and enjoyment of his job. He was unclear as to whether he had received a response to the request for his continuance in the role pending the outcome of Adjudication.

Mr Coone took the oath to accompany his evidence.

CA-00069045-001 Discrimination by my employer on grounds of age

CA-00069045-002 Discrimination through a provision of an Employment Agreement

He had worked as a school bus driver from 26 November 2018.

He had ceased driving the school bus when he had been terminated by Mr Ger Healy from his employment in the conjoined cases. He was informed that he had reached 70 years of age.

The Complainant told the hearing that he had taken legal advice to support his wish to sustain his employment.

Mr Coone subsequently revised his position in that he agreed that he had not been employed by Bus Eireann but understood that they were a legitimate mark as Mr Healy was the contractor and he was bound by Bus Eireann rules.

He confirmed that it was not his intention to call Mr Healy in evidence. He did not have a contract of employment which bound him to the respondent employment.

Mr Coone sought to ventilate a political oration on the unfairness of having to cease work at 70. I explained my purpose was to make a decision under the claims he had submitted.

As the complainant had accepted that he was not employed by the Respondent, I read out the corresponding sections of the Employment Equality Act 1998 which pertained to his case.

He was asked if he wished to withdraw his claim in light of his declaration.?

I expressed some concern that he was not accompanied by those who had clearly advised him to present this case.

He was not keen to withdraw the case.

The Complainant went on to quote empirical evidence from theories on safety for school bus drivers not impeded by age.

The Complainant accepted that the date of his termination of May 2, 2025, post-dated his complaint to the WRC.

When asked to identify a comparator, he referred to a Bus Eireann driver, without allowing me to probe a name.

The Complainant made reference to a service level agreement between Hollywood coaches and the respondent which ceased his employment on May 2, 2025. He did not exhibit this document.

He then clarified that he was not employed by the Respondent.

He referred to having paid €60 for a medical report which his parallel employer had sent to Bus Eireann. This was dated 2 April 2025 and passed him fit to drive, group 1 and 2 for 1 year. The Respondent submitted they had received this from Hollywood Coaches

During cross examination, the complainant informed Mr Sheridan that he accepted that he was not employed by the respondent but wanted to avail of the opportunity to highlight the issue.

In closing, the complainant re-iterated that he worked for Ger Healy. He wanted the hearing to note he had enduring familial responsibilities, and he had been certified fully fit to drive in April as he reached 69 years and 11 months.

His cessation was against his will and discriminatory.

“There is no real evidence that over 70-year-olds are more dangerous to school runs on buses than other age groups. Yet, I am unceremoniously sacked like this loss of nothing to do in the morning’s loss of income etc that it would be detrimental to anyone’s health or wellbeing. “

In being asked to clarify if his claim was anticipatory? he answered that it was ongoing.

He finished by stating that he just wanted to be allowed drive and sought compensation for loss of earnings.

The Complainant accepted that the Respondent had never employed him.

The Respondent operates a National Transport Company.

CA-00069045-001 Discrimination by my employer on grounds of age

Mr Sheridan for the Respondent contended that the Complainant, Mr Coone did not have legal standing to advance this claim, as:

 “Mr Coone is not an employee of Bus Eireann but is employed by “Hollywood coaches “which is more than 7,500 school bus contractor companies which provide school transport services for the Dept of Education through formal commercial third-party contract arrangements with Bus Eireann “.

The Complainant had been informed that he lacked this standing on Friday, May 2, 2025

The Respondent does not have any employment records pertaining to Mr Coone

He exhibited a 5-year contract for school bus services, 26 August -30 June 2029 with Mr Gerard Healy.

He relied on S.4.7.2 which nullified any legal liability to a contractor or the driver in terms of termination within that clause.

He outlined that the complainant could access other work at Hollowood Coaches

Mr Sheridan submitted that the CIE Superannuation scheme has placed retirement for all employees at 66 years of age since 2015.

In March 2000, part time school drivers were permitted to continue driving from age 65 to age 70, dependent on annual medical review and sanction by the CIE CMO (Chief Medical Officer)

This is universally applied across the directly employed (200 drivers) and contractor drivers. Transport is provided to 170,000 school children daily.

In 2022, the Respondent entered Agreement with the Unions on a “Longer Working Policy “which carried an option to work to a maximum age 70.

Mr Sheridan submitted the restriction beyond 70 is based on medical advice and risk management practice.

The issue has become political and in May 2025, Government, under a new Programme for Government committed to undertake an independent assessment on the feasibility of removing the exclusion of drivers over 70 from the school transport system. The Road Safety Authority is also considering this.

The Respondent will await the outcome of those reviews.

The current age range is 19-70 in terms of the application process.

CA-00069045-002 Discrimination through a provision of an Employment Agreement

Mr Sheridan concluded that the Respondent was not party to any Collective Agreement involving the complainant, as he was not their employee.

The Respondent sought dismissal of the claim.

Evidence of Breda Mc Dermott by oath

Ms Mc Dermott oversees the school transport runs and confirmed that the complainant was one of a large group of drivers who were contractors.

Mr Healy, the complainant’s employer had 10 operational runs for Bus Eireann. These covered special and mainstream routes.

The Complainant was subject to the medical vetting procedure as pertained to contractor drivers.

In cross examination, Ms Mc Dermott accepted that the complainants name was on the company’s nominated drivers list.

He advanced the question that if he failed his medical that would Fastrack his cessation of employment.

In closing, Mr Sheridan repeated that there was no ostensible employment link between the complainant and the respondent. The Complainant had acknowledged this in his evidence.

He denied that the Respondent had discriminated against him.

Mr Sheridan referred to a recent case where Firefighters retirement at 60 was deemed to be objectively justified.

I have been requested to make two decisions in these complaints. In reaching these decisions, I have listened carefully to the parties as they presented their respective cases. I have considered the submissions made.

This is a case of a driver who wants to keep driving a school bus beyond his 70th calendar year. It is also the case of a Transport company who have a rule in place which prohibits that.

Mr Coone has come to hearing on the advice of somebody, (who did not accompany him to hearing) in the belief that the Respondent was a veritable target for his situation.

 He also came to hearing in the certain knowledge that he was not employed by the Respondent. He was not seeking to be recognised as a Bus Eireann employee but rather for continuance as a school bus driver to support his familial responsibilities.

Lastly, he came to hearing in the certain knowledge that he was not a participant or beneficiary or a Collective Agreement for the purposes of the Employment Equality Act 1998 -2015.

The Respondent came to hearing in the aftermath of a strident denial of employment, but reliance on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the complainant’s employer, Holly wood Coaches.

 However, the Respondent issued an SLA which postdated the circumstances of this case i.e. August 2025 onwards.

Crucially, it did not have a paragraph on cessation of school driver status at 70. This was reserved for a flyer effective 23 September 2022 and signed by the Chief School Officer.

I was unable to establish the presence of a Policy which clearly described that school drivers would cease aged 70. This ack of transparency caused me some concern.

Bus Eireann School Transport Services Aged 19 to 70 years only (Minimum acceptable age and mandatory requirements for Drivers and Contractors)

I would have been much happier to have seen a communication protocol between Bus Eireann and Hollywood Coaches which addressed the timelines in their business arrangements.

If I could use a bus parlance, that before the last stop of 70 years that somebody would be identified as nominated to have this very conversation.

I understood the complainants point when he said that was deemed fully fit to drive a small and large bus for a year in April 2025, yet he was stood down by the Respondent in May 2025.

Perhaps the business partners could work on a communication protocol to that end please?

However, ultimately, I have been requested to make decisions under the Employment Equality Act.

I must be satisfied that the complainant has the locus standi (the standing) to advance a case under the Act.

While the definition of employee is broad and generous under the Act, it cannot be elevated to fitting the circumstances of this case as both parties accept that the complainant is not an employee.

"employee", subject to subsection (3), means a person who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment and, where the context admits, includes a member or former member of a regulatory body, but, so far as regards access to employment, does not include a person employed in another person’s home for the provision of personal services for persons residing in that home where the services affect the private or family life of those persons;

“employer”, subject to subsection (3), means, in relation to an employee, the person with whom the employee has entered into or for whom the employee works under (or, where the employment has ceased, entered into or worked under) a contract of employment.

There is nothing before me to allow me to conclude that the parties are ostensibly linked in direct employment.

I have found that the Complainant has raised the circumstances of this case as political leverage for the ongoing public discourse and campaigns in this domain.

I have also found that the Respondent was overly reticent in seeking to manage the business relationship with the contractor particularly once the Medical Certificate of 2 April 2025 was generated.

CA-00069045-001 Discrimination by my employer on grounds of age

Discrimination by employers etc.

8.— (1) In relation to—

(a) access to employment,

(b) conditions of employment,

(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,

(d) promotion or re-grading, or

(e) classification of posts,

an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee, and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate against an agency worker.

I have found that the complainant cannot avail of the term employee as defined in the Act.

 He has no locus standi in this case.

In addition, this is an anticipatory claim lodged in advance of the event complained of.

Dismissal of claim.

77A.— (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious, or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

(2) (a) Not later than 42 days after the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Labour Court on notice to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(b) On the appeal the Labour Court may affirm or quash the decision.

I dismiss the claim as misconceived.

CA-00069045-002 Discrimination through a provision of an Employment Agreement

Section 2 of the Act defines a Collective Agreement as:

"Collective agreement" means an agreement between an employer and a body or bodies representative of the employees to which the agreement relates.

Reference of collective agreements to Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission.

86.—(1) If the Authority or a person who is affected by a collective agreement claims that a provision of that agreement is null and void by virtue of section 9, the Authority or that person may refer the question of that agreement to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission; and in this section (and section 87) the Authority or the person making such a reference is referred to as “the complainant”.

(2) For the purposes of this section (and section 87)—

(a) the expression “collective agreement” shall be taken to include an order or agreement falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of section 9 (3),

(b) a person is affected by a collective agreement if that person is an employee whose remuneration or whose conditions of employment are, in whole or in part, governed by the agreement (or any part of it), and

(c) “the respondents” means the parties to the agreement, other than (where relevant) the complainant.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), where a collective agreement is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under this section, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall consider whether the question of the possible nullity of a provision of the agreement appears to be one which could be resolved by mediation and—

(a) if the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission considers that the question could be so resolved, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commissionshall refer the agreement to an mediation officer for mediation in accordance with section 87, and

(b) if the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission considers that the question could not be so resolved, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall proceed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (4).

(4) If the complainant or the respondents object to a reference under subsection (3)(a) (or if section 78(7) applies in accordance with subsection (6)) the Director—

(a) shall not exercise the powers under subsection (3)(a),

(b) shall investigate the agreement and, for that purpose, hear all persons appearing to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commissionto be interested and desiring to be heard, and

(c) shall issue a decision in accordance with section 87,

and subsections (3) and (4) of section 79 shall apply in relation to an investigation by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under this subsection as they apply in relation to an investigation by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under that section.

I have already established that the complainant, by his own admission and endorsed by the Respondent is not an employee.

He cannot avail of the protection of a collective agreement, as a result.

By application of Section 77 (A)(1)

Dismissal of claim.

77A.— (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious, or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

I dismiss the claim as misconceived.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-00069045-001 Discrimination by my employer on grounds of age

By application of Section 77(A)(1) of the Act, I have dismissed the claim as anticipatory and misconceived.

CA-00069045-002 Discrimination through a provision of an Employment Agreement

By application of Section 77(A)(1) of the Act, I have dismissed the claim as anticipatory and misconceived.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]