In the case of Patrick Donnellan and Eircom Limited (ADJ-00051860) the Complainant brought a complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, challenging the Respondent’s enforcement of a mandatory retirement age of 65 and its refusal of his application for an extension of his contract.
Facts:
Prior to his retirement in April 2024, the Complainant had been employed by the Respondent (and/or its predecessor) for 44 years. The Complainant submitted that his contract of employment did not specify a retirement age. He submitted that it made reference to 65 in terms of receipt of pension but there was no requirement to retire at that age. The Complainant was employed as a field technician.
The Complainant submitted that he had substantial financial commitments for example putting a family member through third level education and was not in a position to retire at 65. Both sides acknowledged that he sought an extension of his contract but that this was refused citing factors such as intergenerational fairness, health and safety concerns and succession. He appealed this internally within the Respondent but his appeal was unsuccessful.
The Respondent gave evidence at hearing to the effect that the Respondent’s defined benefit pension scheme has historically been drawn down at age 65 and that retirement at 65 is custom and practice across the organisation.
Evidence was given of the Respondent’s retirement policy having been reviewed back in 2020 following external benchmarking and union engagement.
Evidence was also provided around the rationale behind the retirement age of 65, naming succession planning, career progression, headcount management and the need to maintain an age balanced workforce.
The Respondent submitted that 70% of its 900 staff are employed as field technicians (like the Complainant) and 60% of field technicians are currently over the age of 60. The Respondent submitted there is an aim of avoiding sudden loss of skilled staff. Reference was also made to the field technician role being a “safety critical” role.
The Respondent outlined the succession planning in place for the Complainant’s territory and the hiring of an apprentice in 2023 and in 2024 to address anticipated retirement in the Clare area. A witness for the Respondent gave evidence that “retirement age of 65 was to support intergenerational fairness, career progression, workplace diversity and health and safety, particularly relevant in physically demanding roles like those in open Eir, where 65% of the workforce is over 60, and in Clare, 88% are over 60”.
The Respondent gave evidence that the Complainant’s annual salary after 44 years of service had been €48,463.11 and that upon retirement, he received a tax-free lump sum of €68,087.34 and an annual pension of €22,695.00.
Decision:
In this decision, the WRC Adjudication Officer Úna Glazier- Farmer relied on the current legal position on retirement age as set out in Seamus Mallon v The Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IESC 20 (see end of this article for a link to our previous article on Mallon).
The Adjudication Officer referred to the Supreme Court’s finding in Mallon that a mandatory retirement age does not constitute unlawful age discrimination where it pursues a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim is appropriate and proportionate in accordance with article 6)1) of the Directive 2000/78/EC and the relevant CJEU jurisprudence.
The Adjudicator listed some examples of what can constitute a legitimate aim as set out by the Supreme Court and referred to the Supreme Court having found that the avoidance of an individual capacity assessment has been recognised as a legitimate aim in favour of justifying a general retirement age.
The Adjudication Officer also referred to another recent WRC Decision on the topic of retirement age namely Valentine Reilly v Meath County Council ADJ-00050118 and the analysis of the Adjudication Officer in that case.
Ultimately, the Adjudication Officer found that in the instant case there had been a “consistent and systematic” and “coherent” application of the mandatory retirement rules by the Respondent, that the Respondent’s legitimate aims were identified in a letter to the Complainant communicating its decision to refuse an extension of his contract and were based on intergenerational fairness, succession planning, and health and safety. She noted the Respondent’s Retirement Policy which also refers to maintaining an age balance in the workplace. She found all four aims were noted by the Supreme Court in Mallon as legitimate.
The Adjudication Officer relied on the Supreme Court’s finding that an employer is “better placed than the court to assess what [is] necessary or appropriate for the effective operation of the coronial system” and found that this limits the role of the WRC to consider whether the Respondent’s judgement appeared to be unreasonable. She found that the Respondent is best placed to assess what is necessary or proportionate for the effective operation of its business.
The Adjudication Officer found the Respondent had acted reasonably in accordance with its Retirement Policy and the mandatory retirement age was objectively and reasonably justified by legitimate aims.
She commented that while it is entirely understandable that the ongoing costs associated with supporting his family are substantial, in the circumstances, the Respondent’s mandatory retirement age of 65 was appropriate and necessary in light of the pension provision.
Takeaway for Employers: This decision serves as reminder that while mandatory retirement ages are permissible if they pursue a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and proportionate, they provide fertile ground for dispute and are regularly challenged by employees in the WRC.
Employers should consult with their lawyers to ensure they are up to date on the topic of retirement ages and are operating in a manner that is consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mallon.
Link – https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/october/adj-00051860.html
Links to some other recent articles we have written on this topic:
Authors – Abigail Ansell and Laura Killelea
30 November 2025
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.