Ryanair has brought a High Court challenge to a decision of the Equality Tribunal to proceed with an investigation.
The tribunal investigation relates to a complaint by a pilot that his alleged forced retirement at the age of 60 amounted to age discrimination.
Peter Gallagher (63), St Margaret’s Avenue, Raheny, Dublin, who joined Ryanair in 1990 and whose employment was allegedly terminated in 2008, complained to the Equality Tribunal in 2009 there was no lawful objective grounds unrelated to age for his being compulsorily retired.
Mr Gallagher said he had not wished to retire and made that clear to Ryanair orally and in writing but it had terminated his employment with effect from October 7th, 2008, his 60th birthday.
While commercial pilots' licences (CPLs) issued by Ireland and most other countries were until recently only valid up to a pilot reaching 60, that situation has changed and Irish CPLs may now be renewed until the age of 65, Mr Gallagher said.
He claimed he had offered to continue working for Ryanair either directly, or on a contract basis, through Brookfield Ltd, a contracting organisation used by the airline.
His offer was refused in a letter of December 2008 in which Ryanair stated: “Having considered your record and performance during your time with us (including your continuing litigation), we would not consider you as a suitable candidate for future employment in this airline.”
In his complaint, Mr Gallagher alleged the termination of his contract could not have happened to a pilot aged under 60 and amounted to a discriminatory dismissal contrary to the Employment Equality Acts. At least five other pilots have continued in employment after age 60 either directly or through a contracting agency, he claimed.
Ryanair claims it was a term of Mr Gallagher’s employment he would retire at the age of 60. It also alleges Mr Gallagher is “a serial litigator” against it, denies he was forced to retire and claims he chose to retire under his contract.
Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, today secured leave from Mr Justice Michael Peart to bring judicial review proceedings challenging an Equality Officer’s refusal of Ryanair’s application to determine a preliminary issue in the case before proceeding to a full investigation.
The handling of the case would be very different depending on that preliminary issue, the court was told.
Ryanair wanted a preliminary ruling the tribunal was not entitled to restrict or interpret Section 34.4 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (allowing for different retirement age for different classes of employees) by reference to an EC Directive of 2000, which established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
Article 6 of the directive requires the fixing of different ages for retirement for different classes of employees must be justified by certain criteria, but Ryanair contends that directive is not directly effective between it and Mr Gallagher.
The Equality Officer refused to decide the preliminary issue, said he would hear Mr Gallagher’s complaint and address all issues in his decision. In those circumstances, Ryanair withdrew from the hearing which proceeded in its absence.
In its judicial review, Ryanair claims, if any decision has been made by the officer, that should be quashed or stayed pending the outcome of the review.
Ryanair also claims any hearing of the complaint by Mr Gallagher must be on the basis of Section 34.4 without consideration of the directive.
