Garda challenges retirement age

Santa Claus

Story here

An assistant commisioner is challenging the rule that forces him to retire at 60. Ordinary gardai have to retire at 57 and senior ranks get till 60 as far as i remember.

Does anyone know how long you have to be at a rank before you pension rises to match that rank ? I thought it was 3 years before date of retirement but according to the story he's serving in his current position since 2005 (maybe the end of 05 and hence he doesn't have the full 3 years....call me cynical but any of my family members that reached their 30 years service couldn't get out quick enough).

FGR

There's a lot to be said about being in a senior position in such a job. You're being respected and highly regarded by all those within the organisation and have a lot of responsibility and authority.

What happens when; after so many years at such a position; that you go down from "Commisioner X, Sir" to "Hey John X". I feel that although the majority of Gardai cannot wait until they hit the big 3,0..There's always the exception to the rule.

The man has a right to contest the legal age of retirement..but a victory will completely halt any progress and youth reaching higher management ranks for years to come.

Paulzx

As far as i'm concerned, the arguement that allowing him to stay blocks promotion prospects for other people is ridiculous. If the man is good at his job and capable of carrying out his duties he should be allowed stay until 65.


The fact that someone else is not going to be promoted into his position is not to me a sound legal argurment to force him to retire.

I'd like to add that i wouldn't be hanging around when i'm due to retire and i think he's nuts to want to stay!!

lostexpectation

fair play to him whens the result

yayamark

paulzx wrote: »

as Far As I'm Concerned, The Arguement That Allowing Him To Stay Blocks Promotion Prospects For Other People Is Ridiculous. If The Man Is Good At His Job And Capable Of Carrying Out His Duties He Should Be Allowed Stay Until 65.


The Fact That Someone Else Is Not Going To Be Promoted Into His Position Is Not To Me A Sound Legal Argurment To Force Him To Retire.

I'd Like To Add That I Wouldn't Be Hanging Around When I'm Due To Retire And I Think He's Nuts To Want To Stay!!

+1

keen

Fair play to him, if he's as good at his job as he was when he was younger then it seems very unfair that he would have to step down just because the rules say so.

Eru

Paulzx wrote: »

As far as i'm concerned, the arguement that allowing him to stay blocks promotion prospects for other people is ridiculous. If the man is good at his job and capable of carrying out his duties he should be allowed stay until 65.


The fact that someone else is not going to be promoted into his position is not to me a sound legal argurment to force him to retire.

I'd like to add that i wouldn't be hanging around when i'm due to retire and i think he's nuts to want to stay!!

Agree completely. Think its a case of people getting institutionalised like prisoners do.

they simple wont know what to do with themselves when they retire.

Santa Claus

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Agree completely. Think its a case of people getting institutionalised like prisoners do.

they simple wont know what to do with themselves when they retire.

Exactly. When my father retired after his 30 years he was straight out onto the golf course every morning whereas a lad who retired at the same time as him took a security job in Woodies where his boss was a 24 year old lad with a diploma in security....this man was a detective for 20 years but had no interests outside of work so opted for the crap job just to do something (he didn't need the money, that was the days when most gardai had at least 1 house in flats...I know of 1 retired garda who's a millionaire many times over from his property sales since he retired)

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0726/1217013245744.html

Detective loses case against compulsory retirement

THE STATE'S longest-serving detective has lost his High Court case aimed at overturning the compulsory retirement age of 60 for assistant commissioners in the Garda.

Former assistant commissioner Martin Donnellan (60), who was awarded a Scott Medal for bravery during his career, had claimed the law requiring him to retire at 60 is ageist, irrational and contrary to changes in life expectancy. He turned 60 last month and was officially retired from then.

His challenge was to a government regulation (statutory instrument) in 1996 which altered the retirement age for assistant commissioners from 65 to 60.

In opposing the case, the State argued the lower retirement age was necessary to ensure talented younger people could move through the Garda ranks. It also claimed that restoring the age to 65 would create a blockage at senior level.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Liam McKechnie dismissed Mr Donnellan's claims.

While there had been new equality legislation and EU directives since the 1996 change, he could not retrospectively apply a theoretical test as to the validity of that change.

He was satisfied the 1996 regulation was introduced as part of a policy aimed at motivating the force, freeing up positions in higher ranks for individuals whose ambition was to progress through the Garda and allowing senior management to promote particularly talented people earlier than previously might have been expected.

The judge said there were 15 positions at the rank of commissioner/ deputy commissioner/assistant commissioner level, representing 1.5 per cent of the force in what is a pyramid structure, and this had to have a major bearing on whether discrimination under age grounds could be justified under the relevant EU directive. The judge said the aim of the 1996 change was to provide for a more efficient and effective police force, and the government of the day was entitled to make that change. It was not the function of the court to encroach on policy of the government in this respect or to encroach on the management of the Garda.

The question to be considered by the court was whether there was justification for the policy, he said. If the change had not been introduced, there would have been just one retirement at this level in the past five years but, as a result of the change, there were 10 retirements. Over the next four years, there would have been fewer than the expected seven retirements had the age of 65 been in force.

It could be deduced from those figures that some benefit had been derived from the change, although that benefit had not entirely worked its way through the system at this stage, the judge said.

While there was no dispute that Mr Donnellan would be a loss to the force, that applied in many areas of life, Mr Justice McKechnie added.

Mr Donnellan had had another option, under other rules within the force, to apply to have his tenure extended by another three years, the judge also noted. Mr Donnellan had applied for that extension of tenure last February but was rejected by the Garda Commissioner. That additional option was an important factor as to whether the change in retirement age was proportionate and reasonable, the judge said.

He further noted that retirement would not place a financial penalty on Mr Donnellan, who will receive a gratuity of more than €200,000 along with an index-linked pension of €70,000 per annum. His decision only applies to the rank of assistant commissioner and not to any other rank of the Garda, he stressed.

After delivering judgment, Mr Justice McKechnie adjourned the question of costs to next Thursday. Afterwards, Mr Donnellan said he was disappointed with the decision.

lostexpectation

do you reckon he could get a decent job elswhere now?

Eru

lostexpectation wrote: »

do you reckon he could get a decent job elswhere now?

Why the hell does he want one? Hasnt he heard of spain, sangria and golf??