The High Court dismissed Cornelius McCarthy’s appeal against an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision that Bridie O’Mahony’s employment in his Tralee retail TV and repair shop ended by reason of redundancy.
The appeal was on a question of law under section 39(14) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended. Mr Justice Michael White said the court could not identify a point of law showing that the tribunal’s findings rested on an error of law or an unsustainable finding of fact.
Ms O’Mahony began working for Mr McCarthy on 15 December 1971. Her employment ended on 23 February 2011, her 66th birthday. Mr McCarthy said he visited her that day, left a retirement card and gave her a cheque for €2,500. He said retirement at State pension age was customary and that she was not replaced. Ms O’Mahony said she thought the card was a get-well card and that they had never agreed she would retire at 66.
The tribunal found there was no written contract or written or verbal agreement setting a retirement age. It concluded that a redundancy situation existed in the business in February 2011 and found that Ms O’Mahony was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It also allowed her claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 to 2005.
Mr McCarthy, representing himself, relied on an earlier High Court case concerning whether a retirement age could be implied into an employment contract. Ms O’Mahony’s counsel argued that he had raised no legal ground permitting the High Court to overturn the tribunal’s decision. Counsel said the tribunal had distinguished the earlier case because it concerned private-sector employment and no evidence had been presented of a specific retirement age being widespread in work like Ms O’Mahony’s.
The High Court said the tribunal had reached its conclusion primarily as a matter of fact and had declined to imply a retirement term. It held that the appeal must fail. The judgment records dismissal of the appeal; it does not set out a separate order on the tribunal’s award.