Minister for Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L., Instructed by Office of Chief State Solicitor) v George Mc Loughlin (Represented by Anne Conlon B.L., Instructed by FP Logue Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] 2 JIEC 1230
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.UDD209 ADJ-00009800 CA-00011856-001
• Date: 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Minister for Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L., Instructed by Office of Chief State Solicitor)

and

George Mc Loughlin (Represented by Anne Conlon B.L., Instructed by FP Logue Solicitors)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/18/1

DETERMINATION NO.UDD209

ADJ-00009800 CA-00011856-001

Labour Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00009800 CA-00011856-001.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 2 January 2018 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 January 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal by George Mc Loughlin (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer's Decision ADJ-00009800 given under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2015 (the Acts) in a claim that he was unfairly dismissed by his former employer Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (hereafter the Respondent). The Adjudication Officer found that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Background

4 The Complainant joined the civil service on the 4 ^th January 1999. He was an established civil servant whose retirement date was tied to his 65 ^th Birthday which fell on the 8 ^th of January 2017. The Complainant had sought an extension to his retirement age, but this was not granted, and he retired with effect from the 8 ^th January 2017. The Complainant's case is twofold 1) that his application for retention after age 65 was not processed in accordance with the circular governing such requests and 2) his application for retention was refused because he had made a protected disclosure.

5 Preliminary issue.

Respondent's case

6 The Respondent raised a preliminary issue in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. The Respondent's position is that there was no dismissal as Mr Mc Loughlin retired from his employment on reaching the age of 65 as provided for in the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956. The Respondent citied section 2 (1) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 which states that the Act shall not apply in respect of the following persons:

• “ (b) an employee who is dismissed and who, on or before the date of his dismissal, had reached the normal retiring age...