The High Court has ruled that a retained firefighter employed by Drogheda Borough Council had a contractual retirement age of 65, and that the council could not change it without his agreement. The ruling is subject to his continued health and fitness for the role under the Occupational Health Scheme for Retained Firefighters.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 19 November 2008, followed the council’s decision to treat the worker as having reached retirement age when he turned 58 in March 2008. He had sought a declaration that his retirement age was 65 and an injunction preventing the council from retiring him earlier.
The worker joined Drogheda Fire Brigade as a part-time retained firefighter in 1980, while already employed by the council as a general operative. He later became a full-time driver. His retained firefighter role was non-pensionable and paid an annual retainer plus fees for call-outs. The court found that the retirement age for the role was 65 when he joined, and that this became a term of his service.
The council relied on changes agreed nationally in 2002 and recommended by an expert group in 2003. Those arrangements set 55 as the preferred retirement age, with a medically assessed option to continue to 58. The expert group’s terms excluded firefighters whose written contracts specified a retirement age above 55. The council said the worker was bound by the collective agreement and had to retire at 58.
Justice Laffoy held that the 2002 agreement bound the employers’ board and the unions, but the evidence did not establish that it bound this individual worker. He had not voted on the agreement, and there was no evidence that union members had been given notice or an opportunity to express a view on its terms, or that union rules made it binding on him. The judge also concluded that his letters seeking yearly extensions and attending medical examinations did not establish that he had agreed to reduce his retirement age.
The court rejected his separate argument that he should qualify for the expert group’s written-contract exemption because the council had failed to provide a statutory written statement of employment terms. There was no evidence that he had requested such a statement under the relevant legislation.
The worker was entitled to the declaration and injunction he sought, but the court specified that both must include the original health and fitness condition. It did not set their final wording in this judgment, saying it would hear further submissions on the precise terms of the orders.