Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90692 Case Number: LCR13286 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning superannuation arrangements for 4 ex-boilermen at Waterford Regional Hospital.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court finds that in general the provisions of pension schemes
are designed for the payment of benefits to the member as a
consequence of rights to benefit accrued over the years of
service. Theses rights are limited to the degree promised under
the pension scheme rules.
It is generally anticipated that the pension rights accrued over
the period of reckonable service will increase as a consequence of
increases in pay or allowances in the nature of pay, or
improvements in pay as a consequence of promotion. In the case
before the Court, as a consequence of the loss of premia payments
the members concerned will suffer a reduction in anticipated
pension entitlements, without any means within the rules of the
scheme to redress the situation.
The Pension Scheme to which the workers belong, similar to other
pension schemes, gives the expectation that benefit will accrue on
a progressive basis in accordance with the factors outlined above
(In examples quoted in the scheme concerned, the basis for
calculations presumes improvements in benefits at the date of
retirement).
It would appear that the authors of the scheme did not conceive of
circumstances arising where workers, as a consequence of
rationalisation, would be redeployed with a loss of pensionable
remuneration and consequently a reduction in pension expectations.
Given the scheme has national application the Court takes the view
that the issue should be addressed in a wider forum.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties arrange for the
matter to be discussed in the context of the overall pension
scheme, with a view to the preservation of these pension rights
accrued during the years of service.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90692 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13286
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning superannuation arrangements for 4
ex-boilermen at Waterford Regional Hospital.
BACKGROUND:
2. In recent years the Board has converted all of its
boilerhouses to natural gas in order to reduce expenditure.
Boilermen affected by the conversion were offered redeployment or
early retirement. The 4 boilermen concerned opted for
redeployment and were re-assigned to general operative positions.
This re-assignment meant they no longer had access to premia
earnings in respect of shift and week-end working. Premia
earnings are superannuable and are reckonable for pension and lump
sum calculations. In order to benefit from the higher
contributions paid while employed as boilermen the workers
concerned would have to retire within 3 years of the date of their
re-assignment as general operatives. The Union claims that by
choosing redeployment the workers have suffered, by losing the
benefit of the contributions they paid while earning shift premia,
and by being precluded from getting a rebate of the contributions
paid on their premia earnings. The Board claims that it has no
discretion in dealing with the problem as the superannuation code
is controlled at national level. No agreement was reached at
local level discussions and the matter was referred on 20th June,
1990 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 7th November, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 28th
November, 1990 to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Labour Court investigated the dispute in
Waterford on 10th April, 1991 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The superannuation code is a national scheme which has
major implications for workers at local level. The problem
in relation to the scheme has arisen in recent years due to
the redeployment of workers. This problem, which has major
implications for the 4 workers concerned, has wider
implications for other workers in the health authority area
and needs to be reviewed at national level.
2. By taking jobs at a lower rate of pay, instead of opting
for redundancy, the workers concerned have suffered a loss in
relation to pension and lump sum entitlements. As they have
lost the benefit of the contributions paid on their premia
earnings they should get a rebate of their contributions.
Unfortunately under the present superannuation code they are
unable to get a rebate. They should be compensated for their
loss.
BOARD'S POSITION:
4. 1. In accordance with the existing superannuation code the
Board is precluded from reckoning any premia earnings unless
they are earned within the 3 years prior to the date of
retirement of the staff members concerned. Furthermore the
Board is also precluded from making any refund of
superannuation in respect of the premia earnings.
2. A number of staff in the Board's employment have
redeployed to positions which reduced or eliminated access to
premia earnings and therefore at time of retirement they will
no longer have the benefit of these premia for the purposes
of their superannuation calculations. This will be a
continuing difficulty within the service where
rationalisation of services gives rise to redeployment to
posts which no longer attract premia earnings. The Board has
made representations at national level to have the problem
addressed.
3. In any event there can be no guarantee of access to
premia earnings as they were originally introduced to
compensate for working unsociable hours. Workers who have
redeployed within the Board now enjoy a more socially
acceptable roster.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court finds that in general the provisions of pension schemes
are designed for the payment of benefits to the member as a
consequence of rights to benefit accrued over the years of
service. Theses rights are limited to the degree promised under
the pension scheme rules.
It is generally anticipated that the pension rights accrued over
the period of reckonable service will increase as a consequence of
increases in pay or allowances in the nature of pay, or
improvements in pay as a consequence of promotion. In the case
before the Court, as a consequence of the loss of premia payments
the members concerned will suffer a reduction in anticipated
pension entitlements, without any means within the rules of the
scheme to redress the situation.
The Pension Scheme to which the workers belong, similar to other
pension schemes, gives the expectation that benefit will accrue on
a progressive basis in accordance with the factors outlined above
(In examples quoted in the scheme concerned, the basis for
calculations presumes improvements in benefits at the date of
retirement).
It would appear that the authors of the scheme did not conceive of
circumstances arising where workers, as a consequence of
rationalisation, would be redeployed with a loss of pensionable
remuneration and consequently a reduction in pension expectations.
Given the scheme has national application the Court takes the view
that the issue should be addressed in a wider forum.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties arrange for the
matter to be discussed in the context of the overall pension
scheme, with a view to the preservation of these pension rights
accrued during the years of service.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd May, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman