The Labour Court has found that the current Garda age limit of 35 for new job applicants is discriminatory on the grounds of age.
The Labour Court has made the determination after ordering the gardaí to pay out €25,400 compensation — or €12,700 each — to unsuccessful job applicants, Ronald Boyle and Brian Fitzpatrick after finding that An Garda Síochána discriminated against the two on age grounds.
The Labour Court has made the ruling despite Garda Commissioner Drew Harris telling the court that the age cap of 35 for new entrants for An Garda Síochána “is essential”.
Commissioner Harris was the main Garda witness over four days of a Labour Court hearing into the two cases.
In the ruling, deputy chairwoman at the Labour Court Louise O’Donnell has stated that the court finds the age limit of 35 “is not appropriate or necessary.”
In the Boyle case published on Thursday, Ms O’Donnell stated that An Garda Síochána conceded that Mr Boyle had raised a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of age.
Ms O’Donnell stated that the court determined that the maximum age of 35 for recruitment to An Garda Síochána as provided for in 1998 Regulations “does not constitute a genuine and occupational requirement”.
The Court further determined that the maximum age of 35 for recruitment to An Garda Síochána "is not objectively justified”
Ruling
Ms O’Donnell stated that the court made this finding having regard to the objective of training Garda recruits and the need for a reasonable period of time prior to retirement during which the recruit will be effective in the job.
She noted that the court found that the Garda have failed to establish a correlation between the requirement of a high fitness level and the requirement to exclusively recruit under the age of 35.
Ms O’Donnell stated that while the characteristic at issue might be genuine the Garda has not established that it is a determining occupational requirement.
Ms O’Donnell also found that there was no evidence before the court to indicate that gardaí of a certain age could not carry out some or all of their duties, or that gardaí in an older age cohort had higher levels of absences or injury arising from carrying out their duties.
Mr Boyle applied to join the gardaí aged 48 in 2005, but his application was not processed, as he was advised by Public Appointments Service (PAS) that he did not meet the eligibility requirements as the age limit for new entrants is 35. Mr Fitzpatrick was 37 when his job application was not advanced.
Mr Boyle told the Labour Court that he was then and still is physically fit and that one of his jobs is as a swimming instructor.
Mr Boyle believes he would have passed the physical fitness requirement and that he was discriminated on the grounds of age contrary to the Employment Equality Act.
Mr Boyle stated that it was a lifelong ambition to be a garda and he was aware that he would only get a reduced pension, but that fact did not bother him.
Expert witnesses
At hearing, four expert witnesses gave evidence on behalf of both men.
Mr Boyle and Mr Fitzpatrick initiated their cases in 2006/07 for “the distress suffered as a result of this discrimination.”
Both are represented by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) and in 2020, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found in their favour ordering compensation of €12,700 in each case.
The rulings by the WRC were appealed by the Garda and the Minister for Justice to the Labour Court.
The WRC rulings were vigorously contested on appeal by the Garda at the Labour Court, who called Commissioner Drew Harris and 10 others to give evidence on behalf of the force.
Commissioner Harris told the Labour Court that he believed that an age cap of 35 for An Garda Siochána “is essential”.
He pointed out that Ireland is unique in European policing as it is a unitary police service which includes responsibility for national security, counterterrorism and major crime investigation.
Commissioner Harris said that he believed the age cap was an appropriate way of ensuring the reliance of the force.
The Commissioner stated that the cap has proven its value through organisation resilience.
The Commissioner also noted that in coming to the conclusion that the age cap of 35 was required, he had considered his responsibility to deliver a service that had the operational resilience to protect the people of Ireland.
Age cap
Commissioner Harris stated that having a cap of age 35 with a mandatory retirement age of 60 gives the prospect of a minimum of 25 years’ service and the potential for the person to achieve nearly full pension as 30 years is required for full pension.
In his evidence, Commissioner Harris highlighted a number of the functions which he indicated would require a high level of physical ability and physical agility.
He said that members require the stamina to be as alert at the end of the shift as they are at the start of the shift.
Commissioner Harris accepted that currently there is no process for requiring gardaí to maintain fitness post attestation.
He said that the financial cost of testing staff post attestation is huge and includes the cost of lost hours, cost of the test, and backfilling of staff. Commissioner Harris stated that the cost of loss of days alone would cost €2.9 million.
Both men were represented by Eileen Barrington SC and Kiwana Ennis BL.
Asked to comment on the outcome, a Garda spokesman said on Thursday: “An Garda Síochána is considering the Labour Court determination on this matter.”
Commenting on the "important" ruling, Chief Commissioner of the IHREC, Sinéad Gibney stated: “Brian and Ronald were denied any prospect of providing service to the State as members of An Garda Síochána due to their age and likewise, the State also lost out on the opportunity to avail of their skills and experience, due to arbitrary age limits.
She said: “This ruling sends a clear message to any employer that there is absolutely no place for age discrimination in the workplace in Ireland today. After more than 15 years of fighting for their rights against the discrimination they experienced, I congratulate both men and wish them well in their futures.”
