Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Caroline Brilly Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 196

CA -00071028

23/04/2025

The Complainant is seeking a recommendation stating that she should be allowed to work on past her retirement age. The Respondent states that for several objectively justified reasons that is not possible.

The Complainant has been employed with the Respondent since 2002 and worked in a senior staff nurse role until 24 April 2025.

At a meeting with HR regarding the calculation of annual leave while on sick leave, a discussion took place between Ms NE and Ms HH regarding applying for a one-year contract extension after retirement. In an email dated 24 January 2025 Ms HH outlined the application process. This in the Complainant’s opinion clearly indicates that the Respondent operates such facility to employees. The Complainant on 25 January 2025 emailed Ms Finnegan clearly seeking an extension to her contract passed her retirement date. The Complainant also wrote to the director of nursing, Mr CN on the same date.

 On 10 April 2025 the PNA wrote To Ms FN in HR as the Complainant was due to meet with Mr CN on 11 April 2025. Therein they requested information from the Respondent regarding the arrangement for extension of contracts for a one-year period, post retirement. Ms FN responded to the email from 10 April confirming the Complainant’s appointment with Mr CN but no information or response was given in relation to the one-year extension request. On 16th April 2025 Mr CN, Director of Nursing wrote to the Complainant with the outcome of the meeting held 11 April 2025. She was informed that the service could not accede to her request to remain on post her retirement age. She was advised of her right to appeal that decision within seven days. The Complainant appealed that decision to Mr M and Mr M responded to her on 22nd April acknowledging her appeal and requesting her to provide him with written grounds of appeal. By email dated 23 April 2025 the Complainant emailed her grounds of appeal.

The Complainant felt and continues to feel physically and mentally capable of continuing in her professional role. She asserts that a balance age structure is important and in not having this balance it could be viewed as ageism.  She also asked it to be noted that at her own expense she had invested in further education to bring expertise to the eating disorder service. She also set out how proud she was of the service and of the 23 years she had given to the Respondent. On 23 April she wrote again to Mr M this time reminding him that she had not signed a contract with the Respondent since commencing her employment in July 2002 and that contract was silent on a mandatory retirement age. On 09 May Mr M corresponded with the Complainant setting out his decision in relation to her appeal. He informed her that he was upholding the decision of the Director of Nursing.

The Complainant is relying on the case of Mallon V The Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General 2024 IESC 20.

The Complainant began her employment with the Respondent on July 8, 2002, as a full-time, ward-based Registered Psychiatric Nurse (RPN), working 75 hours per fortnight. She retired on April 24, 2025, upon reaching the contractual retirement age of 66.

Following her retirement, The Complainant lodged a complaint under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, stating that she wished to continue working beyond the age of 66 with her current employer.

In response, the Respondent outlined that the contractual retirement age for all staff, including the Complainant, is 66, which aligns with national norms and the state retirement age. On February 25, 2025, the Complainant submitted a request to the Director of Nursing and the then Assistant Director of Human Resources, seeking to extend her contract by one year past retirement. On March 7 and March 14, she followed up on the outcome of her request and was advised that the matter remained under active consideration. She met with the Director of Nursing, and on April 16, 2025, she was informed that her request had been declined.

This decision was consistent with the outcome of similar requests by other staff in the Nursing Department. The Complainant appealed the decision to the Director of Services, citing her physical and mental capability, the value of mature staff, concerns of ageism, and her own expertise and professionalism. After a full review, the Director of Services upheld the original decision.

The Respondent  explained that their retirement policy is long-established and applies consistently across the Nursing Department. The organisation maintains that this policy is proportionate and objectively justified by legitimate aims, referencing the legal precedent set in Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20. It argued that the policy aligns with state retirement provisions and ensures no financial disadvantage to retiring employees.

The Complainant was a member of the now-closed Defined Benefit Pension Scheme and later the Defined Contribution Scheme, with significant employer contributions and additional support available through professional financial advisers and sponsored retirement planning courses. She also received a share of a €7 million distribution when the Defined Benefit scheme was closed in 2017.

The Respondent highlighted the demanding nature of the role of a ward-based psychiatric nurse, which includes physical and mental challenges, regular exposure to patient aggression, mandatory training in managing aggression and manual handling, and active, intensive engagement during 12-hour shifts. The role requires responding to emergencies and assisting in physically restraining patients when necessary. In 2024 alone, there were 41 incidents related to aggression or violence.

Health and safety concerns were central to the organisation’s justification for maintaining the retirement age. They emphasised that staff who become restricted in their duties due to age or health may impose additional costs or workloads on colleagues. Predictable turnover through retirement facilitates workforce planning and ensures opportunities for junior staff to assume senior roles, aiding retention and succession planning.

The Respondent invests significantly in staff development, with approximately €500,000 allocated annually to non-mandatory training—half of which goes to the Nursing Department. They stressed the importance of orderly staff transitions to maintain operational integrity and ensure long-term sustainability in staffing.

The Respondent asserted that its decision to deny the Complainant’s request to remain beyond retirement was consistent with organisational policy and precedent. The policy is justified on the grounds of health and safety, succession planning, operational efficiency, and dignity in retirement. The organisation respectfully requested a finding in its favour.

The Complainant is a registered psychiatric nurse. She reached the retirement age of 66 on the 24.04.2025. Prior to retirement the Complainant had worked for the Respondent since 2002. She worked 12 hours shifts both day and night.

On the 25.02.2025 The Complainant sought permission to remain on beyond the age of retirement. She raised a grievance in relation to that issue. That grievance was heard, and her request was denied. The Complainant appealed that decision. That appeal was heard but the appeals officer did not uphold her appeal. The Complainant then lodged her claim with the WRC.

In relation to the pension there were detailed discussions in 2017 with all the various parties / Unions involved. Those talks took place with the assistance of the WRC. An agreement was reached. Those who were with the DB pension scheme had funds lodged to the new DC pension scheme which they will get the benefit of in retirement. Within those discussions, the parties received correspondence setting out that their retirement age was 66. The Complainant states that she never got that correspondence.  She did however receive annual pension statements, and they did set out the date of maturity, which in her case was April 2025.

The role of psychiatric nurse is a demanding role both physically and mentally. Last year alone there was 41 incidents related to aggression or violence reported. The existence of a mandatory retirement age is there to protect the staff and to provide dignity to them at the end of their working life. It is also there for health and safety reasons due to the demands of the role.

Mandatory retirement ages are legal in this jurisdiction provided the enforcer can objectively justify them. In the most recent case of Seamus Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland, and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20 Seamus Mallon, a sheriff, was forced to retire at age 70 under Section 12(6)(b) of the Court Officers Act 1945. He argued this amounted to unlawful age discrimination under Irish employment law and the EU Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC). He claimed that a blanket retirement age lacked objective justification and violated his rights to equal treatment and that the government failed to show that it pursued a legitimate aim or that the means (forced retirement at 70) were proportionate. The State argued that the retirement age served legitimate aims of promoting intergenerational fairness (opening opportunities for younger appointees), Ensuring a predictable retirement system for public offices, supporting workforce planning and judicial efficiency and that the limit was reasonable and proportionate under EU and Irish law. The Supreme Court found that Mandatory retirement ages can be lawful if they pursue legitimate social/employment policy objectives and are proportionate, that Intergenerational fairness and succession planning were valid policy goals, that a fixed age limit of 70 was not arbitrary but part of a consistent legislative framework and they dismissed Mr. Mallon’s case.

The Respondent submits that the designated retirement age is 66, aligning with the state pension age, thereby ensuring that retiring employees do not experience any financial disadvantage. In fact, the Complainant receives a notably generous pension.

The Complainant's role is both physically and mentally demanding, with the strain accumulating over time. There are several recognised hazards associated with the position, which are managed through established control measures. These hazards include interactions with individuals who may exhibit aggressive, violent, or impulsive behaviour, necessitating the mandatory use of personal alarms and the requirement for regular training every one to two years. Additionally, staff are expected to lift patients, a task that places considerable physical demands on them.

The Respondent explained that if an employee is medically restricted from performing manual handling or participating in physical restraints, it may require assigning additional nursing staff to the area, which incurs extra costs, or it may increase the workload on colleagues.

Having a clearly established contractual retirement age supports the preservation of both personal and professional dignity and helps avoid sensitive issues related to an individual’s health or capacity, which may naturally decline with age.

The Respondent also emphasised its significant investment in staff training, further education, and development, spending approximately €500,000 annually on non-mandatory training programs. Allocating nursing staff to wards is a complex task that involves numerous factors. As part of professional development, staff are given opportunities to take on senior duties by ‘acting up’ or serving as the ‘charge nurse.’ These opportunities are essential for junior staff to gain the experience necessary for career progression. Without them, succession planning and staff retention would be undermined, potentially creating operational challenges in service delivery.

The Complainant emphasised that she is a fit and healthy 66 year old with good mental health and as a result she is fully capable of continuing on with her role. She is devoted to her job, and she wants to continue. She is a valuable asset to the Respondent and has a wealth of experience.  She expressed upset in relation to how she departed. After so many years of loyal service she was expecting some sort of acknowledge of her years of service and commitment to her role. She got nothing and that upset her.

In all of the circumstances I find that the Respondent argument in relation to objectively justifying its retirement policy based on physical and mental demands of the role, workforce planning, succession planning and intergenerational fairness is a valid one and therefore they are entitled in law to require staff to retire at aged 66. I am satisfied that the Complainant was aware of the retirement age since 2017 or at the latest, when she received her pension statement at the end of 2017 or in early 2018.  However, having listed to the Complainant speak passionately about her work, I do accept and understand how the Complainant felt about the Respondent’s lack of acknowledgment in relation to her years of devoted and loyal service.

I am making the following recommendations:

1.       The Respondent is to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1000.00 as a good will gesture for the upset caused by their failure to acknowledge her years of service upon her retirement.

2.       The aforementioned sum is to be paid on or before the 1st November.

The Respondent is to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1000.00 as a good will gesture for the upset caused by their failure to acknowledge her years of service upon her retirement.

The aforementioned sum is to be paid on or before the 1st November.