The High Court has upheld a €46,000 Labour Court award to Michael McCarthy after finding no legal error in a decision that Calor Teoranta discriminated against him by requiring him to retire at 60.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered judgment on 19 March 2009 in Calor’s appeal on a point of law from a Labour Court determination made in April 2008.
McCarthy had worked for Calor since 1964. Although he had agreed in 1987 to reduce his retirement age from 65 to 60, he later opted in 1994 to leave permanent employment and return as a casual employee on reduced terms. McCarthy told the Labour Court that a Calor director assured him at that stage he could continue working until 65.
The Labour Court accepted that evidence and found his retirement age had become 65. It concluded that forcing him to leave at 60 amounted to age discrimination.
Calor argued that the Labour Court had no role in deciding his contractual retirement age, that its factual finding was unsupported, and that it had been unfairly refused an opportunity to call further evidence after the hearing.
Clarke J rejected those arguments. He held that the Labour Court had to determine McCarthy’s retirement age because it was necessary to decide the discrimination complaint. There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of 65.
The judge also found no procedural unfairness. Calor had known before the hearing that McCarthy alleged assurances about working until 65, had not sought further details in advance, and had not requested an adjournment during the hearing.
The High Court also upheld the €46,000 compensation award. It comprised €38,000 for financial loss and €8,000 for the effects of discrimination. Clarke J found McCarthy’s actual financial loss from losing five years of potential employment would have exceeded the statutory maximum available.
The appeal was therefore rejected and the Labour Court order affirmed.