RYANAIR HAS brought a High Court challenge to a decision of the Equality Tribunal to proceed with an investigation into 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, whose employment was allegedly terminated in 2008, complained to the tribunal in 2009 there were no lawful objective grounds unrelated to age for his being compulsorily retired.
He said he had not wished to retire and made this clear to Ryanair, 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 age 60, that situation had changed and Irish CPLs may be renewed until the age of 65, he said. He claimed he had offered to continue working for Ryanair directly or on a contract basis.
His offer was refused in a letter of December 2008 from Ryanair.
Mr Gallagher claimed at least five other pilots have continued in employment after age 60 either directly or through a contracting agency with the airline.
Ryanair claims it was a term of Mr Gallagher’s employment that he would retire at age 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.
Yesterday, Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, 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.
Ryanair wanted a preliminary ruling the tribunal was not entitled to restrict or interpret Section 34.4 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 by reference to an EC Directive of 2000 which established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
The equality officer refused to decide the preliminary issue and said he would hear Mr Gallagher’s complaint and address all issues in his decision.
In these 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.
