Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87390 Case Number: LCR11299 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - FWUI;ACTS |
Claim concerning the pension and redundancy entitlements of five workers.
Recommendation:
5. Both parties agreed that the claimants had received their full
entitlements under the Superannuation Scheme. There was a
conflict of evidence however as to how the information supplied
related to queries by individual members regarding their
entitlements in the event of their opting for early retirement.
The Court having carefully considered all the evidence presented
is of the view that the claimants were not unfairly treated. The
Court therefore does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87390 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11299
CC861892 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11299
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim concerning the pension and redundancy entitlements of
five workers.
Background:
2. In 1985 the Board sought voluntary redundancies at Clonsast
works. At a meeting in November, 1985, the employees were advised
to check with the local Works Accountant regarding their personal
entitlements before opting for redundancy. Over one hundred
workers approached the Works Accountant with enquiries concerning
this matter. Subsequently thirty eight employees volunteered for
redundancy, including the five workers here concerned. The Unions
contend that these workers, who are all close to sixty years of
age, were led to believe, by the Works Accountant, that their
pension benefits would be similar to those of workers over sixty,
from the time they reached their sixtieth birthdays. This in fact
was not the case. The Unions contended that the workers' decision
to opt for voluntary redundancy was based on misleading
information and sought compensation of #5,000 to each of the five
workers. The Company rejected the claim. The matter was referred
by the Unions to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
17th and 19th November, 1986. Conciliation conferences were held
on 11th February, 1987, and 11th March, 1987, the earliest dates
suitable to all parties. No agreement was reached, however, and
the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 12th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Most of the workers made redundant were over sixty
years of age and in addition to their redundancy
payments, received normal pension benefits which
entailed a lump sum gratuity and a pension based on
prior and subsequent service. (Prior service refers
to service up to 14th March, 1963, when the
Superannuation Scheme came into operation. Members
paid no contributions for service credited during this
period. Subsequent service refers to service from
14th March, 1963, and is based on paid contributions).
The five workers concerned were led to believe by
Management that in opting for redundancy they would
receive similar pension benefits to those over sixty,
when they reached their sixtieth birthday. Management
gave them projections of the pension benefits they
would receive at age sixty and it was on this
information (details supplied) that they accepted
redundancy.
(ii) Several months after being made redundant, the five
workers received a letter from the Secretary of the
Pension Scheme setting out pension entitlements which
were substantially less than the amount which they had
been informed they would receive. Details as follows:
Amounts which the workers | Actual entitlements under the
were informed they would | Pension Scheme
receive |
________________________________________________________________
gratuity pension | pension or contribution
(yearly) | (yearly) refund
| (less 10% tax)
Worker A #12,378 #1,868 | #865.01 #3,360.20
Worker B #4,800 #717 | #665.05 #3,732.90
Worker C #13,700 #1,920 | #1,131.22 #4,077.02
Worker D #9.000 #1,400 | #800.09 #3,096.65
Worker E #11.465 #2,860 | #1,181.35 #4.257.69
Under the regulations of the scheme it is now clear
that the entitlements set down in the Pension
Secretary's letter are correct and the amounts
projected by Management, which formed the basis on
which the workers agreed to redundancy, are incorrect.
(iii) The Unions contend that since the workers were
misinformed and mislead by Management into making a
decision which was against their best interests and
which caused them a major loss of pension benefits,
the Board should compensate them for their loss by a
payment of #5,000 each.
(iv) On the reverse of the form setting out their
redundancy entitlements, projections of the pension
benefits the workers were to receive at age 60 were
detailed in writing by the Works Accountant (copies
supplied to the Court).
(v) At no stage prior to being made redundant, including
an information meeting attended by the Secretary of
the Pension Scheme and the Senior Personnel Officer,
were the five workers made aware that by accepting
redundancy they would forfeit their entitlement to
prior service and a lump sum gratuity.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The individuals concerned volunteered for redundancy
and they and their Unions were given information prior
to taking a decision. In the course of the interviews
held, many hypothetical questions were asked in
relation to individual circumstances. While the
Unions have in their possession calculations made in
writing by the Works Accountant concerning the
individuals, there is no evidence as to what queries
these calculations were made in response to.
(b) The workers received redundancy lump sum payments in
accordance with those already agreed with their
Unions, in addition to their entitlements under the
Superannuation Scheme.
(c) No claim is being processed on behalf of the employees
in Kerry bogs who were made redundant compulsorily and
were treated similarly.
(d) The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 10918 rejected
a claim by all Unions in the employment for
improvements in the pension benefits where redundancy
or early retirement occurs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Both parties agreed that the claimants had received their full
entitlements under the Superannuation Scheme. There was a
conflict of evidence however as to how the information supplied
related to queries by individual members regarding their
entitlements in the event of their opting for early retirement.
The Court having carefully considered all the evidence presented
is of the view that the claimants were not unfairly treated. The
Court therefore does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
6th July, 1987 -------------------
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman