Dublin Port Company (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v Robert Kieran (Represented by Mr John Wilde-Crosbie BL Instructed by Eugene F. Collins, Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 February 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 2 JIEC 2201
• Date: 22 February 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Docket Number: DETERMINATION NO.EDA1814,ADJ-00004560 CA-00006567-001,FULL RECOMMENDATION

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

ADE/17/48

DETERMINATION NO.EDA1814

ADJ-00004560 CA-00006567-001

PARTIES:

Dublin Port Company (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)

and

Robert Kieran (Represented by Mr John Wilde-Crosbie BL Instructed by Eugene F. Collins, Solicitors)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 77 (12), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2011

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00004560.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 77(12) of the Employment Equality acts, 1998 to 2011. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 February 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

3 This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Robert Kieran (the Claimant) of a decision by an Adjudication Officer in his complaint that his then employer, Dublin Port Company (the Respondent), discriminated against him on grounds of his age contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer addressed the question of time limits for the making of a complaint under the Act as a preliminary matter. The Adjudication Officer decided that the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, made on 22 ^nd August 2016, was made outside of the time limit of six months laid down in the Act at Section 77(5)(a). It is that decision on a preliminary issue which is before the Court in this appeal.

Background

4 The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent as a marine pilot on 4 ^th October 2004 and his employment terminated on 15 ^th March 2016.

5 The Respondent wrote to the Claimant by letter dated 29 ^th January 2016 advising that the Respondent had decided to retire the Claimant with effect from 15 ^th March 2016 upon his reaching the age of 65 on that date and advising him that his sick pay would continue until his retirement date. The Claimant's legal adviser wrote to the Respondent by letter dated 4 ^th February stating that the termination of the claimant's employment on age grounds amounted to age discrimination and indicating that this was not acceptable to the Claimant.

6 The Respondent terminated the employment of the Claimant on 15 ^th March 2016 and the Claimant made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission alleging discrimination on the age ground on 22 ^nd August 2016.

Summary position of the Claimant

7 The Claimant contended that the act of discrimination giving rise to his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission was the termination of his employment on 15 ^th March 2015. The Claimant submitted that the Adjudication officer had considered the decision of this Court in Calor Teoranta v McCarthy (EDA089) and concluded that the date of communication of the decision of the Respondent to terminate the Claimant's employment by reason of age was to be taken as the date of the act of alleged discrimination in the within matter. The Claimant submitted that the fact that he had been advised of the decision of the Respondent on 29 ^th January 2016 could not remove from him the capacity to complain that the termination of his employment on 15 ^th March 2016 was an act of discrimination. The Claimant...