Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88590 Case Number: LCR12058 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AN CHOMHAIRLE OILUINA TALMHAIOCHTA - and - UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS |
Claim by the Union for an amendment of the terms of the voluntary redundancy/early retirement scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the differences complained of derive
from the staffs fundamental terms of service, and whilst the
result of the proposals for early retirement may prove more
beneficial to certain groups, since the scheme is voluntary and
the application of the terms standard throughout the public
service the situation as it applies to former ACOT staff does not
warrant any charge in the overall terms. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88590 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12058
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AN CHOMHAIRLE OILUINA TALMHAIOCHTA
and
UNION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL CIVIL SERVANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an amendment of the terms of the
voluntary redundancy/early retirement scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. ACOT was established in 1980 through the merger of the former
Local Authority County Committees of Agriculture with certain
functions of the Department of Agriculture. The majority of
professional staff were former local authority employees while a
minority were former civil service employees. Under the terms of
the 1956 Local Government Superannuation Act, the former local
authority staff are entitled to have their service augmented by
way of "added years" for time spent acquiring professional
qualifications. The "added years," system together with the years
allowable under the early retirement scheme which is in operation
in ACOT, give former local authority staff employed by ACOT a
maximum of ten combined added years. Staff recruited by ACOT
since 1980 will also receive added years subject to the maximum of
ten. In contrast most former civil service staff are not entitled
to receive any additional "professional added years." Under the
early retirement scheme, they will receive a maximum of seven
added years after twenty years' service. Both groups of staff
carry out the same duties. The Union, on behalf of the workers
concerned, claims that there is no basis for differential
treatment in respect of the early retirement/voluntary redundancy
scheme and that all staff irrespective of their background prior
to the formation of ACOT should be entitled to the maximum of ten
added years for the purposes of the early retirement/voluntary
redundancy scheme. ACOT rejected the claim. It claimed that the
extra years of nominal service to which the former employees of
the County Committees of Agriculture are entitled, is a matter of
statutory obligation under the terms of the 1956 Local Government
Superannuation Act. The Union, on behalf of the workers, rejects
this argument, claiming that the early retirement/voluntary
redundancy scheme as it applies in ACOT is an ad hoc arrangement
and there is no grounds for differential treatment of staff.
Agreement could not be reached on the issue at local level, and on
22nd March, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 24th June, 1988. Agreement was not achieved, and on 25th July,
1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 15th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. ACOT is unique within the public service, in that
differential early retirement terms apply within the
professional staff. Colleagues working side by side are
treated differently. The anomaly is significant, with
substantial financial implications (details supplied to the
Court).
2. In making this case the Union is not attempting to
undermine the basic terms of the Government package. Rather
it is seeking to remove an anomaly which has arisen following
the clarification of the details of the offer as it affects
local authority staff.
3. The details of the application of "additional" added years
over and above the Government package of 7 years followed
negotiations with the relevant civil service and local
authority unions after the announcement of the basic terms of
the Government package. The modification or clarification of
the Government package as it affects ACOT has severe
implications for a minority of staff in the Organisation. It
should be noted that the original details of the Government
package as circulated to staff made no mention of additional
added years.
4. It has been suggested that the early retirement/voluntary
redundancy package is an ad hoc arrangement without a
statutory basis at present. If that is so there is no
justification within ACOT or Teagasc legislation for
differential treatment of its staff.
5. There is provision under the Civil Service Superannuation
Act (1963) to grant up to 10 added years where a civil servant
has 20 years' service or more. If this were applied, all
former civil servants with 20 years service would get equal
treatment with their colleagues who formerly worked for the
local authority. There are also provisions under the act to
designate grades as professional positions to which
augmentation of superannuable service can be made. This would
allow for years spent acquiring professional qualifications to
be reckoned along with the early retirement added years
thereby giving parity between the two categories. This
provision is in fact the same as that which allows for the
extra added years under the Local Government Act.
6. The Union asks the Court to recommend in favour of the
application of up to ten added years in the case of the
claimants in ACOT.
ACOT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is not correct to say that there is discrimination in
the application of the early retirement/redundancy scheme in
the Organisation. The alleged anomalies referred to by the
Union are a direct consequence of long established differences
in the superannuation provisions of the different categories
of staff. These differences applied in the Organisation
before the early retirement programme was introduced and will
continue to apply when that programme has been discontinued.
2. The legislation which transferred professional staff from
the County Committees of Agriculture to ACOT (and subsequently
to Teagasc) entitles them to no less favourable conditions
than the conditions which applied to them before transfer. It
is because of the legislative guarantee that the former county
committee staff are entitled to their system of professional
added years, and not because of their conditions of service as
applied in ACOT.
3. The provision of the local authority system of added
years is historically based. In Management's view it is
excessively generous. Details of the system were available to
the Civil Service Arbitrator when he was considering a related
claim in 1982. He did not recommend the introduction of the
local authority system of added years (details supplied to the
Court).
4. It is not uncommon in the superannuation area for some
categories of staff to enjoy more favourable conditions than
other employees within the same organisation. Such
distinctions are usually designed to protect pre-existing
contractual entitlements, and this is also the case in ACOT.
In Management's view, it is quite unacceptable that a
protective provision of this kind should be invoked in support
of an all inclusive claim for improvements in superannuation
benefits.
5. The local authority system of professional added years is
of limited scope even in the local authority area itself.
Following the implementation of the Arbitrator's finding in
the civil service, the civil service system of added years was
applied to local authority staff who were not covered by the
traditional professional added years system.
6. If the Union's claim were to succeed, ACOT staff who were
formerly in the civil service would secure more favourable
treatment in the matter of added years than if they had
remained in the employment of the Department of Agriculture.
Such a development would give rise to repercussive claims from
professional civil servants, and from all other public service
staff whose professional added years terms are based on the
civil service model. It should be noted for example that it
is the civil service system which applies to the staff of
ACOT's sister organisation, An Foras Taluntais.
7. It is not within the discretion of ACOT to improve or
alter the terms of the early retirement scheme; this is a
matter for the Government. It has been made clear however,
that there is no prospect of alteration of the scheme. The
need is not recognised, and there is no funding available to
alter the financial provisions of the scheme. The scheme is
entirely voluntary, and no employee is obliged to exercise the
early retirement option.
8. Management accepts that there is a valid case for the
granting of compensation in the form of added years to staff
who are unable to secure full pension because of recruitment
restrictions imposed by management. However the scheme which
emerged as a result of independent adjudication represents an
equitable method of compensation for such staff, and should
continue to apply to the ACOT staff members concerned in this
claim.
9. It is clear that the repercussive effects of concession of
this claim would not be confined to ACOT. Ultimately,
concession could result in the local authority added years
system becoming the "norm" throughout the entire public
service at substantial extra cost to the exchequer. The Court
have already examined the financial provisions of the current
Government scheme in the context of a different claim
(LCR11920 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the differences complained of derive
from the staffs fundamental terms of service, and whilst the
result of the proposals for early retirement may prove more
beneficial to certain groups, since the scheme is voluntary and
the application of the terms standard throughout the public
service the situation as it applies to former ACOT staff does not
warrant any charge in the overall terms. The Court does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
6th October, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.