Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8789 Case Number: LCR11352 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RENTS & CO. - and - ASTMS |
Claim for the incorporation of one clerical employee into the Company pension scheme.
Recommendation:
6. Essentially the Court is being asked by the Union to accept
that in 1969 their member was specifically excluded from
participation in the pension scheme then about to be introduced by
the Company. There is no direct evidence to support or disaprove
this contention.
However, having regard to the employee's long service with the
Company the Court recommends:
(1) that the Company amend its offer set out in the Royal Life
quotations of the 11/6/86 to provide for the benefits set out
therein to be made payable on her 60th birthday.
(2) that she be given the opportunity, if she so wishes, to work
until her 65th birthday in which case a further amount, the
equivalent of five years' pensionable service under the terms
of the general scheme, would be added to the pension due on
her 60th birthday.
(3) the employee should become immediately eligible for the
general death in service benefit.
(4) the employees contribution until her retirement should be 5%
of salary
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8789 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11352
CC86579 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11352
Parties: RENTS & CO.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
Subject:
1. Claim for the incorporation of one clerical employee into the
Company pension scheme.
Background:
2. The Company is a "household management" firm which pays
domestic bills for clients as they arise in return for a fee. The
client also pays a monthly sum which over twelve months will equal
the total amount of outlay. The Company employs approximately
eight people, two of whom are male collectors and the other six
are office workers. The claimant who commenced work with the
Company in 1964, is the office supervisor. The two male workers
are in the pension scheme, the entry age for males being between
21 and 60 years. The entry age for females is between 30 and 55
years. In late 1984, the Union sought to have the claimant
included in the Company pension scheme as she had not been
included when it was first introduced. There are conflicting
claims as to why this did not happen. The Company claim that at
the time of its introduction, the claimant did not avail of the
option to join the scheme while the Union claim that when she
approached Management to be allowed join, she was told that female
members would not be included. The Union further contends that
she was denied access on several subsequent occasions. Following
lengthy correspondence between the parties, the Union referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner on the 6th February, 1986, but the
Company was unwilling to attend such a hearing and on the 25th
March, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Act (the Company
had earlier declined to attend a conciliation conference). A
Court hearing was held on the 26th May, 1986, at which the Court
requested the parties to hold further discussions in an effort to
resolve the dispute.
3. On the 20th June, 1986, a conciliation conference took place
at which the Company tabled proposals for the Union's
consideration. These proposals consisted of an up-dating of the
retirement plan which the Company had offered to the claimant in
1984 (details supplied to the Court). A further conciliation
conference was held on the 5th February, 1987, but no agreement
was reached and on the 9th February the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 3rd March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) At no time did the claimant opt out of the pension
scheme, in fact she has consistently sought to be
included in it, all to no avail. It is unlikely that
in the 1960's female staff in such a small Company
would have been given any opportunity to opt in or out
of such a scheme, given the prevailing environment of
sex discrimination at that time. The Company would not
entertain including her in the scheme and are now using
the excuse of cost to continue to exclude her.
(b) It was only when the claimant joined the Union, in
1983, that the Company started to discuss figures. It
is the Union's view that the Company conceded the
principle of the case but were arguing about cost,
which as far as the Union is concerned is a Company
problem.
(c) The Company's attitude throughout has been thoroughly
unhelpful and the Union requests the Court to recommend
that the claimant be placed in the pension scheme with
effect from December, 1969, and that the Company bear
the full cost of her joining the scheme from that date.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) It is the Company's contention that the claimant did
not avail of the option of joining the pension scheme
when it was first introduced in 1969. In the course of
negotiations with the Union on this matter, the Company
fully investigated all aspects of the particular claim
and are satisfied from the directors involved that she
did have the opportunity to join the scheme.
(ii) In an attempt to try to positively address this
problem, the Company obtained from its insurance
brokers a quotation for an insurance/pension
arrangement and offered her the opportunity of availing
of this cover (details supplied to the Court). As this
proposal (which was up-dated at the conciliation
conference of the 20th June, 1986) was the only
possible method whereby some form of insurance cover
could be obtained for the claimant, it is argued that
the rejection of same by her is unreasonable.
(iii) With regard to including her in the pension scheme
itself, it must be clearly stated that the cost of
introducing such arrangements would be totally
prohibitive for the Company and could not be funded.
(iv) The Court is asked to recommend to the parties that the
claimant accept the proposal as put forward by the
Company. The Company will contribute some modest
amount to the annual premium payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Essentially the Court is being asked by the Union to accept
that in 1969 their member was specifically excluded from
participation in the pension scheme then about to be introduced by
the Company. There is no direct evidence to support or disaprove
this contention.
However, having regard to the employee's long service with the
Company the Court recommends:
(1) that the Company amend its offer set out in the Royal Life
quotations of the 11/6/86 to provide for the benefits set out
therein to be made payable on her 60th birthday.
(2) that she be given the opportunity, if she so wishes, to work
until her 65th birthday in which case a further amount, the
equivalent of five years' pensionable service under the terms
of the general scheme, would be added to the pension due on
her 60th birthday.
(3) the employee should become immediately eligible for the
general death in service benefit.
(4) the employees contribution until her retirement should be 5%
of salary
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
5th August, 1987
D.H./J.C.