A civil servant sacked on his 65th birthday has lost an unfair dismissal claim
The Department of Jobs employee claimed that he wasn’t due to retire – but he was.
A CIVIL SERVANT who was sacked on his 65th birthday has lost an unfair dismissal claim.
George McLoughlin appeared before the Labour Court to appeal the decision of a Workplace Relations Commission-appointed adjudication officer.
He claimed that that he had been unfairly dismissed by his former employer, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which is now called the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation.
However, the Labour Court upheld the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), noting that McLoughlin’s termination on his 65th birthday in January 2017 was not in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act.
Mary Mitchell O'Connor was minister at the time
McLoughlin told the court that 65 was not the normal retiring age for civil servants at that time.
He said that in October 2016 he had made an application for retention in employment beyond his 65th birthday in accordance with a government circular, which allows applications to be considered under certain criteria.
He added that the capacity to retain him in employment beyond that age demonstrated that the normal retiring age for a civil servant at the time was not 65 years of age.
Therefore, he claimed that the failure to retain him in employment beyond his 65th birthday constituted an unfair dismissal.
Normal retiring age
The legal representative for the government department responded that the termination of the McLoughlin’s employment was as a result of reaching his 65th birthday, which was the normal retiring age for a civil servant under the Civil Service Regulation Act.
It was noted that McLoughlin did apply in October 2016 to be retained in employment beyond his 65th birthday.
However, that application was withdrawn through email by McLoughlin in November of that year and no further application was submitted prior to or since his retirement.
It had been considered whether McLoughlin satisfied the terms of the relevant circular and he had been advised that he did not meet the requirements.
The lawyer added that the existence of a way for a civil servant to apply for retention in employment beyond the age of 65 did not create a right to do so and did not affect the requirement for McLoughlin to retire once he reached that age.
The Labour Court ruled that the Civil Service Regulation Act “plainly places an obligation on all civil servants to retire upon reaching their retiring age”, which was 65 at the time.
It found that no application for retention under the terms of the circular was in place at the date of McLoughlin’s termination of employment, and any such application would not have altered the normal retirement age.
