The Employment Appeals Tribunal has found in favour of 11 part-time, Galway-based fire officers who argued they should not be forced to retire because they were beyond the standard retirement age of 55 years.
The tribunal found that although some of the officers had accepted an increased retirement gratuity, which was introduced alongside an attempt to enforce a standard 55-year retirement age, there was nothing in their terms of employment to require such a move.
The tribunal found the fire officers had a lawful expectation of working until they were 65 and ruled that 10 officers should be reinstated. The other officer who had reached his 65th birthday, was awarded compensation of €69,554.
In its case Galway County Council argued that attempts to create standard conditions for the employment of part-time fire officers went back to 1968. One of the terms agreed at that time was that a parting gratuity should be paid to part-time officers at 55, or earlier if certified unfit for work.
In 1983 the officer's union lodged a claim to increase the gratuity and the Local Government Management Services Board sought a number of conditions, one being that the 55 years of age retirement clause should be enforced.
While the union did not accept the scale of the increase in gratuity, the management went ahead and issued a circular in June 1989 to the effect that it would enforce a Labour Court recommendation that all part- time fire officers retire at 55.
The appeals tribunal heard the dispute continued, with an expert group finding in 2003 that there were three types of retained or part-time fire officers. There were: those who had written contracts that stipulated a retirement age of 55 years; those who had written contracts that stipulated retirement at 60 and those who had no written contracts at all.
The management case was that agreement on enhanced gratuities with the unions automatically included the retirement age of 55, and fire officers already over that age should retire in October 2003.
Evidence was given that management paid gratuities to a number of officers, including some of the appellants at that time, and it was believed all cheques were cashed.
However, the 11 officers argued that the age 55 had never been included in contracts of employment until 1983. They understood that anyone hired before then could stay until they were 65, and the debate about standard retiring ages was specific to those who had joined post 1983.
One of the officers claimed the enhanced gratuity had been accepted during the course of negotiations but it was never expected to be prompt retirement for staff who were already in service.
Referring to case law in the area, the tribunal said it must find in favour of the officers unless the terms of their employment had been altered in any lawful way. The tribunal found that this was not the case and the officers had a legitimate expectation to work until aged 65.
