One firefighter awarded said: "Hopefully, it will entice former colleagues who feel aggrieved to look further, delve deeper and dig in."
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has awarded two SIPTU members employed in the Retained Fire Service €15,000 each due to being forced to retire at age 60 when both wished to continue in their jobs.
Jimmy Murphy and Paul Curran, long-serving retained firefighters in Carlow Fire and Rescue Service, were retired on their 60th birthdays, months before the mandatory retirement age in the Retained Fire Service nationally was extended to 62 years of age in May 2024.
SIPTU Advocate, Claire O’Connor, said: “In two separate decisions, the WRC has noted that the workers had been ‘left in limbo’ with no consideration given to their extension requests, either nationally or locally. This was despite it being known that a further extension of the mandatory retirement age was imminent."
“These workers have a cumulative length of service of almost 70 years between them, during which time they have contributed valiantly to the protection of the community, participating in numerous lifesaving firefighting and rescue operations. It is unacceptable that they were so blithely cast aside by their local authority employer upon reaching a particular age, despite enjoying a certified clean bill of health.”
She added: “We welcome this cogent and considered decision from the WRC, which affirms the obligations of employers under the 2017 Code of Practice on Longer Working. It is a timely reminder of the entitlements to proportionality and fairness enjoyed by workers under equality legislation. Strong trade union organisation is crucial in ensuring that employers respect these entitlements and the principles of age equality more broadly.”
Paul Curran said: “I felt I had more to offer as a member of the Fire Service, this shows others thought so too. Hopefully, it will entice former colleagues who feel aggrieved to look further, delve deeper and dig in.”
SIPTU Legal Rights Unit Practitioner Roisin Boyle, said: “These two decisions acknowledge and confirm the well-established principle that setting a retirement age in the workplace is discriminatory unless the employer has taken genuine steps to objectively justify the need for it.