Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Brendan  Coone

Gerard Healy , amended on consent

Representatives

Appeared In Person

Appeared In Person

Act

Complaints  Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070351-001

26/03/2025

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

CA-00070351-002

26/03/2025

The claims incorporated in this ADJ 57970 had already been incorporated in the conjoined case ADJ 56403

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 duplicate claim

CA-00070351-001( duplicate claim to CA-00070352-001

26/03/2025

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

CA-00070351-002( duplicate claim to CA-00070352-002

26/03/2025

On 18 December 2024 and 26 March 2025, the Complainant, a school bus driver and lay litigant submitted a broad dossier of complaints/disputes against his Employer, Hollywood Coaches.

This case is one of a trio of cases submitted by the complainant against two separate submitted employers. Reference ADJ 57165 already decided.

On 26 March 2025, Mr. Coone submitted the following to the WRC which reflected an earlier case lodged against Bus Eireann.

“I am a school bus driver, and I am due to be sacked on 2 May 2025 because I will have reached the age 70 years. I have already sent a submission to bus Eireann about this.

But as they are trying to evade their responsibility by saying that they are not my direct employer, I have no choice but to also make a direct submission against my direct employer. I wish to apologize (sic) to my direct employer about this as he has no choice but to sack me from doing school runs as that is the rule made by Bus Eireann. “

He submitted adjunct complaints to this file CA-00070352-001 and 002. These are duplicate claims to those currently incorporated in ADJ 57970 and I will address those complaints under that mantle.

The complaints using CA-00070351-001 and 002  were populated in ADJ 57570 and CA-00070351-001 and 002 to  ADJ 56403. They are duplicates based on the identical complaint form.

As neither party had observed the 15-day window for submission of written submissions, I approached both parties for these vital windows to the case.

On 16 May 2025, I wrote to the parties to assist in my preparation for hearing.

This correspondence was shared with the complainant, who was equally invited to submit.

Dear Gerard Healy, I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear the cases ADJ 56403 and ADJ 57970 on May 30 next at 1pm. I require a written submission from each party please which allows me to understand the background to the claim prior to hearing direct evidence at hearing. This should contain any inter party correspondence on the topic of the claims. I will require sight of a contract of employment / records of PRSI. / Revenue which link both parties. I will also require sight of the Employment Agreement referred to on the complaint form. I will also require copies of any staff handbook. I would be grateful if you could prioritise this request, please. Once a completed submission has been received, it will be shared with the opposite party. I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing.

On 26 May 2025, the Respondent wrote to the WRC and enclosed.

1 copy of a contract linked to work with Bus Eireann, but attributed to the Complainant .

Annual leave/ Public holiday

2 Job Profile and Disputes Resolution procedures

3 Pay Slips

4 Operating Board Time tab le

5 Bus usage, reference to a second job.

I received some loose documents, mainly what’s apps and random pay slips from the Complainant.

The Parties were requested to provide additional information to help me clarify the issues between them.

I received these documents, and they were shared and responded to.

I apologise to the Parties for the delay in submitting these conjoined decisions.

The WRC agreed to host hearings in all three cases on May 30, 2025, on the complainant’s submission.

In light of the longevity of the employment relationship present, I endeavored to get the parties to consider an informal resolution. I was unsuccessful.

The Complainant presents as a Lay Litigant. He commenced work with the Respondent transport business on 26 November 2018 on a 22-24 hr per week arrangement as a school bus driver in receipt of a gross pay of €375.00.

The Complainant identified Hollywood Coaches/ Gerard Healy as his employer on his complaint forms.

At hearing, in response to a request for clarity on the legal entity, both parties accepted it was Gerard Healy, Employer No 38187221A. I have amended the legal title on consent of the parties.

Mr Coone, the Complainant submitted a number of complaints for the attention of the WRC from December 2024 when he anticipated his employment would cease on his reaching aged 70 in May 2025.

He elected now to file a chronology of occurrences which prefaced these complaints and relied on uncoordinated pieces of paper not placed in any particular order.

I am grateful to the Case Officer in this case who managed the administration of this file.

26 March 2025 Adjunct Complaints  duplicated with

CA-00070351-001 Discrimination by Employer on age grounds, ongoing, no comparator mentioned.

CA-00070351-002 Discriminatory Provisions in an Employment Agreement, no exhibition of Agreement.

On 28 May ,2025, I had cause to correspond with the complainant to limit the submission of further documents to the file. I requested that the parties read each other’s submissions and set on my planned course of action in seeking to complete the hearing in the then 12 complaints.

 I explained that I was not in a position to print out his submission for him. I understood he was limited in just having a phone, rather than   equipment which would photocopy for him.

Evidence of the Complainant:

The Complainant outlined that he was 70 years old and had remained “fit and healthy “. He was unhappy that his employer had ceased his employment in May 2025. He had not worked for the last three weeks before reaching age 70. The bus was not available during the last week.

He had not claimed job seekers benefit. He presented as confused around what actually occurred in May 2025 as nobody discussed redundancy. He believed that he had been indirectly dismissed.

The Complainant submitted that it was his primary wish to remain as a driver of a school bus with the respondent. He had disputed the relevance of completing his competency vetting in April 2025 but completed a three-year vetting.

The Complainant did not know his colleague drivers’ names and was unable to declare a comparator for his equality claim.

He did not discuss a secondary driving position when the school bus ended.” I didn’t think work was available “

The Complainant had no clear recollection of ever having signed statement of terms of employment. He did find some pay slips which he forwarded to the WRC.

He told the hearing that it was very unfair that he had not received his payments for public holidays before December 2023. He disputed that holiday pay was incorporated weekly on his pay slip as that meant he had to absorb a pay cut if he wanted holidays.

He stood over his salary being €375 gross, exclusive of annual leave.

The Complainant was unable to furnish details or recollection of his dismissal or resignation. He submitted that his employment had not ceased at Revenue.

Instead, he confirmed that he did not have notification in writing, but it was common knowledge that school buses were not driven by anyone in excess of 70 years of age.

He recalled completing the CPC annually and had been deemed fit and safe to continue in his role.

During cross examination, Mr Coone accepted that he had not requested other work with the respondent. He accepted that he had not been “sacked “or “fired “

He agreed that he had driven for a Rugby trip to Dublin in the last 6 months.

The Complainant could not point to a Collective Agreement. He confirmed that he was not a member of a Trade Union.

He did not accept that the competency vetting expired on May 3, 2025.

CA-00070351-001 Discrimination by Employer on age grounds, ongoing, no comparator mentioned.

The Complainant has submitted that he has been discriminated on age grounds. He had sought to continue working post his 70th Birthday on May 3, 2025.

As the Complainant visibly struggled at hearing on the burden of proof placed on him to raise facts which allowed me to reach an inference of discrimination, I want to outline an extract from one of his written statements submitted to the WRC. I appreciate this is not evidence and was not cross examined at hearing. I insert it for illustrative basis alone.

This is an extract from an email to the WRC dated 16 May 2025, which is some 9 weeks after the complaints were lodged on 26 March 2025

 I was just thinking how ridiculous unfair and disgraceful that I can't do the job that I was doing for nearly 7 years now. At my own cost. I have my CPC s up to date. At the beginning of April, I passed my medical with flying colours. Also, I got my vetting done at the beginning of April.

 ADJ-00056403 ADJ-0057970

……..

2 But just because some bureaucrats in bus eireann for absolutely no good reasons have a rule to say i can't drive when I'm over 70. I can't do the job that I loved driving the kids to school. For those bureaucrats and people that don't understand. Driving a school bus is probably the easiest driving job a person can do the same route every day any professional driver could do it Bus eireann will probably point at some reports that they have from RSA etc stating reasons why over 70 year olds cannot drive a school bus. I read one of those reports and it was based on theory and empirical evidence which was obviously asked for by bus eireann or some bureaucrats opinions. There is no real evidence that over 70 year olds are more dangerous to do school runs on busses than any other age groups. Yet I'm unceremoniously sacked from the job that i have done since 2018 just because Bus eireann have this discriminatory policy that says I'm old and useless. It's obvious that anyone of any age group been unceremoniously sacked like this lost of nothing to do in the mornings loss of income etc that it would be detrimental to anyone's health or wellbeing. But the bureaucracy of bus eireann obviously don't care about anyone. Ger and Anne Healy of Hollywood Coaches have to obey bus eireann and i would hope that they would have been happy for me to continue to do the school runs only for bus eireanns unfair rules. But I would have liked if Hollywood Coaches had made ( sic) some effect to advocate for me and others coming to over 70 a few months before we became 70. Also it would have been helpful and good manners if a few months before I became 70 I had At least got a letter email what's app message or something from Hollywood Coaches and or bus eireann basically saying. Thanks for the work that you done for us since late 2018. But unfortunately because bus eireann has a policy that over 70 year olds cannot drive school buses we have to let you go. By the way i still haven't gotten anything from Ger healy Hollywood Coaches that I have finished work with them. So to finish it's extremely wrong that because I'm 70 that i had to unceremoniously basically Sack myself. Nobody had even the good manners to write me a letter to say i was finished. Regards from Brendan coone

CA-00070351-002 Discriminatory Provisions in an Employment Agreement, no exhibition of Agreement.

The Complainant was unable to exhibit a Collective Agreement in which he was participant.

In response to the respondent submitted records post hearing, the complainant indicated that he had no recollection of ever signing a contract. Pay slips were not part of his early employment and very rarely available to him . He continued to dispute the Respondent statements of having paid annual leave and public holidays.

The Complainant closed by stating that he was no longer working, and he believed that he had been unfairly treated after loyal and committed service.

He believed he had been discriminated against once reaching 70 and it.

 “Was the way he was treated “

he wanted highlighted. The Complainant submitted various emails to Bus Eireann and RSA which all post date the date of his complaints in March 2025.

He ought to have received his annual leave and public holidays.

The Respondent operates a Coach business and comes to hearing accompanied by his sister. Mr Healy disputed all claims made.

By means of an earlier written submission, he recounted that the complainant had driven the school bus without incident since 2018. He was aware that the complainant undertook two jobs.

He was accommodated when he sought to maintain the bus closer to his residence.

Mr Healy submitted:

1.       A copy of an unnamed contract / job description

2.       Pay slips.

3.       Timetable for work daily

4.       Statement of terms of employment signed by the complainant

Ms Healy gave an undertaking at hearing to send in the records maintained on mobile app. I received a highly edited version of records.

Evidence of Mr Healy, Proprietor

Mr Healy outlined that he was unable to allocate drivers to school bus driving once they reached 70 years of age. This was set down in the Commercial Agreement with Bus Eireann.

He gave the example of another driver, Mr A who ceased in January 2025 without incident.

Following a staff meeting in August 2024, the Complainant told him that he would need money in the short term. He raised the topic of annual leave and public holidays and told Mr Healy; he would not progress his intention to refer his case to the WRC if he could secure some compensation. He also mentioned that he was approaching age 70 on May 3, 2025, and stated “I won’t be doing this for much longer “

Mr Healy submitted that it was common knowledge within his business that drivers were not permitted to drive school buses once they reached 70 years of age. Seven drivers had reached 70 in the last 5 years. Some of whom lingered on other driving duties and some retired. Others were working two jobs.

Mr Healy acknowledged that he had not placed a notification of cessation of school driving at 70 visible in the business.

He employed 10 school drivers and 3 part time drivers.

He followed this up on 7 February 2025 in making a bid for a pay increase.

Mr Healy formed the view that the complainant was extorting him. He submitted that there had been two emails from Bus Eireann to alert the complainant of the impending cessation of driving.

Mr Healy submitted that the complainant earned €14,500 per annum for a 38-week working pattern.

His annual leave was calculated and paid weekly at 8% of salary.

The Respondent outlined that.

During cross examination, the complainant sought to pitch for a return to work and set out the impact of his cessation.

Mr Healy said that he understood his stated need to continue driving during daytime, but school driving was a public policy matter.

CA-00070351-001 Discrimination by Employer on age grounds, ongoing, no comparator mentioned.

The Respondent rejected the claim. He submitted that the Commercial Agreement with Bus Eireann did not permit him to continue placing the complainant as a school bus driver once he reached 70 years of age.

He submitted that the complainant was still in his employment and driving the school bus on the date of the submitted claim.

By means of post hearing submission, I had requested dates of when the Respondent was placed on notice that the Complainant was prohibited in driving the school bus.

The Respondent submitted two email dated 4 April 2025 which confirmed the medical fitness and the second of 25 April 2025, which I have listed here:

Email from Bus Eireann 25/04/2025

 Dear Ger, Drivers Nominated for driving under the terms of your School Transport Contract Nominated Driver: BRENDAN COONE

According to my records, the above- named nominated driver will reach his 70th birthday on 3 rd. May 2025. As per Bus Eireann policy, Mr. Coone can no longer drive once he has reached the age of 70. Please ensure this driver does not operate any School Transport Service on behalf of Bus Eireann on or after the above- mentioned date.

CA-00070351-002 Discriminatory Provisions in an Employment Agreement, no exhibition of Agreement.

The Respondent rejected the claim and was unaware of any collective agreement pertaining to the complainant.

He submitted that the complainant was still in his employment and driving the school bus on the date of the submitted claim.

The Respondent did not make a closing statement.

I have been requested to reach  2decisions in these matters. In reaching my decision, I have considered the written submissions alongside the evidence adduced at hearing. I have also considered the post hearing documentation and associated commentary.

The Parties included details of lots of workplace occurrences in which both of them expressed reservations on how the other conducted themselves. I am bound to inform the parties that I am here to solely adjudicate on whether these claims can succeed or not.

 The matter of operation of the bus company is a matter for Mr Healy and his business. Mechanical and Operational issues, which arose for the complainant are best incorporated in a workplace grievance in the first instance.

I would like to dedicate a paragraph to sharing a comment with the parties on the essence of these claims. Both parties came to hearing unrepresented.

Both parties were welcomed at hearing as Litigant in Person and his employer.

However, I have found that neither party had any sort of engagement prior to hearing. What occurred at hearing was a lot of reciprocal frustration directed in public, which caused me extreme difficulty in my search for the facts, which is the holy grail of my work here.

I would have preferred if both parties had compiled simple narratives of what had occurred for each party within the statutory time limit allowed and submitted it to the WRC prior to hearing as it would have provided all of us with a central cog around which our work could rotate .

I have done my very best to understand both parties’ points as I move to findings in the case.

26 March 2025 Adjunct Complaints.

CA-00070351-001 Discrimination by Employer on age grounds, ongoing, no comparator mentioned.

I have listened carefully to both parties as they recounted the facts associated with this complaint.

The issue of mandatory retirement remains unsettled in Irish Law.

It is of note that Mallon v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 20, considered that placing a mandatory blanket retirement age of 70 for public servants as objectively justified and not warranting individual assessment.

Patrick OCallaghan v Ferrero Ireland ltd ADJ 43459 was found to be dismissed on age grounds on compulsory retirement at age 65, upheld at the Labour Court

Thomas Doolin v Eir Business   Eircom ltd ADJ 45261, ordered reinstatement to July 1, 2023, where a mandatory retirement age was found not to be objectively justified.

Deepak Fasteners ( Shannon ltd ) v Liam Murphy , EDA 2545, contractual provisions and policies .

The Employment Contractual Retirement Ages Act 2025 became law in December 2025, this will, on commencement permit a worker to remain at work to age 66, State Pension Age.

The WRC revised code on Longer Working is awaited.

In an earlier decision ADJ 57165, which involved the Complainant and Bus Eireann, I heard some very similar arguments as have been advanced in this case on a blanket ban on driving a school bus post age 70.

I heard this case earlier in the day on May 30, 2025.

 I heard the complainant’s dissatisfaction with Bus Eireann on the prohibition of driving a school Bus post 70 years of age.

 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 (he) sic, 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.

I find it necessary to refer to this earlier case as the complainant, himself set the scene in March 2025 when he categorised the instant case as an additional option open to him in seeking to retain his school driving role beyond his 70th birthday.

In my role as an Adjudicator, I am bound to have regard for the date of reception of complaints to check whether they comply with statutory time limits?

I must first be satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to proceed.

These complaints supplement the complaint lodged on 18 December 2024 and were received for the first time on 26 March 2025.

It is my view that these latter-day complaints were submitted more as an effort at restraining the anticipated prohibition on driving post 70 rather than a genuine believe that an occurrence of discrimination had already occurred.

On that date, I accept the Respondent submission, the complainant was still actively engaged as a school driver and ready to submit for his Medical Assessment in early April 2025.

Section 77 of the Act places a reportable occurrence in the “past tense “when it states at Section 77(1)

The forum for seeking redress.

77.— (1) A person who claims—

(a) to have been discriminated against or subjected to victimisation,

(b) to have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation,

(c) not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term, or

(d) not to be receiving a benefit under an equality clause,

in contravention of this Act may, subject to subsections (3) to (9), seek redress by referring the case to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission

I endeavoured to obtain a comparator on age grounds from the Complainant at hearing. He was unable to provide a name of a comparator who had been treated l=more favourably on age grounds.

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

6.(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

Section 85 (A) sets down the burden of proof necessary for the complainant in the first instance.

Burden of proof.

85A.— (1) Where in any proceeding’s facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Once more, the Act requires me to look for an occurrence of Discrimination on or before 26 March 2025.

I have not found that occurrence in either Direct or Indirect Discrimination on age grounds.

I can identify that the Complainant was trying to save his driving position in or around 26 March 2025, but I cannot find any records of direct engagement between the parties at this time.

I have included the extract from ADJ 57165 as background for a vacuum of communication which has not been rectified in this employment.

I would have preferred to see activation of a local grievance in the first instance as it is very apparent to me that the employment I have been investigating in this case remains open.

Neither party has brought it to an end, and this may be something the parties wish to revisit as potential for closure.

For now, I must conclude that in the course of my investigation of this complaint, I have not found an occurrence of Discrimination on age grounds within the statutory period permitted.

I have not been aided by extremely frail employment records from both parties which was not remedied in evidence.

I urge the Respondent to address the template of Terms of Employment relied on, which is mega short of best practice and goes to the root of this case.

I lack the jurisdiction to take this matter any further as the Complainant has not demonstrated facts from which I can infer that he was discriminated against on or before 26 March 2025.

The Complainant has not proved a prima facie case of Discrimination on grounds of age within this complaint.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00070351-002 Discriminatory Provisions in an Employment Agreement, no exhibition of Agreement.

Section 2(1) 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.

On the evidence before me, I have not been able to establish a Collective Agreement as outlined in Section 2

The Complainant has not proved a prima facie case of Discrimination on grounds of age within this complaint.

The claim is not well founded.

26 March 2025 Adjunct Complaints

Section 79 and Section 86 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-00070351-001 Discrimination by Employer on age grounds, ongoing, no comparator mentioned.

I lack the jurisdiction to take this matter any further as the Complainant has not demonstrated facts from which I can infer that he was discriminated against on or before 26 March 2025.

The Complainant has not proved a prima facie case of Discrimination on grounds of age within this complaint.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00070351-002 Discriminatory Provisions in an Employment Agreement, no exhibition of Agreement.

The Complainant has not proved a prima facie case of Discrimination on grounds of age within this complaint.

I cannot establish a Collective Agreement.

The claim is not well founded.

Anticipatory Complainant of Discrimination on Age grounds . Collective Agreement .