A sales representative who was fired for meeting clients on a golf course has lost his claim that he was discriminated against on age grounds because his employer described his business style as “old school”. The Workplace Relations Commission heard that Paul Ward was dismissed for gross misconduct from his job as business development manager with oil distribution firm, Scotts Fuels (Ireland) Limited, on October 3rd 2024, after eight months in the role. Mr Ward claimed the company had breached the Employment Equality Act 1998 by discriminating against him on the grounds of his age. The businessman gave evidence that his use of a golf course for meeting clients was described as an “old school” approach which he regarded as “dismissive and ageist.” He told the WRC that he had been headhunted by Scotts Fuels from his previous job where he had over 28 years of proven success in sales and client relationships Mr Ward said he was initially offered a salary of €70,000 which he declined but accepted a role when the offer was increased to €110,000. He explained that a key factor in his decision to leave a stable and long-standing job to accept the new role was the promise of full autonomy in developing and implementing sales strategies. Mr Ward told the WRC that his work methods including informal meetings such as rounds of golf which he claimed had previously proven to be effective in fostering client trust and business development. The WRC heard that he was called to an unexpected disciplinary hearing in September 2024 when he discovered that a GPS tracker had been installed on his company vehicle. Mr Ward said the company, which did not attend the WRC hearing, accused him of misconduct on the basis of three instances where he was at a golf club. Despite confirmation from clients that the meetings on the golf course were legitimate and business-related, Mr Ward said he was dismissed for gross misconduct on October 3rd, 2024. The complainant said the decision to fire him was excessive as his conduct warranted, at most, an informal warning if such meetings were no longer acceptable. Mr Ward said he believed the immediate jump to dismiss him made him suspect that the outcome was predetermined and possibly influenced by his age and more traditional, relationship-focused approach to sales. He also claimed the disciplinary process was flawed and riddled with procedural failings. He said his question as to whether the vehicles of other employees were also monitored was ignored which reinforced his suspicion that he was the subject of targeted scrutiny. The WRC heard that a younger, less experienced colleague, who joined the company on the same day and who was likely to be on a lower salary, was retained. Mr Ward said he felt his dismissal was not related to his performance but rooted in biased assumptions about his age and salary. WRC adjudication officer, Breiffni O’Neill said the complainant’s case was based on his belief that his dismissal was influenced by age-based discrimination because of the reference to his “old school” approach to business. However, Mr O’Neill said the expression was widely recognised in its common usage as referring to “traditional, longstanding, or previously standard practices.” The WRC official said it was not inherently age-specific and might be applied to individuals of any age who engage in conventional methods. “It is generally interpreted as indicative of a way of operating rather than a reference to a person’s age,” observed Mr O’Neill Dismissing the claim, he ruled that the use of the phrase did not constitute prima facie evidence of age discrimination.