Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91248 Case Number: LCR13452 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of mandatory retirement at 65 years of age for academic staff.
Recommendation:
7. In recommendation 12847, the Court stated inter-alia that a
continuation of the retirement age of 70 years was unjustified in
existing circumstances. This is still the opinion of the Court.
However, the Court also proposed in recommendation 12847 that the
parties have discussions to formalise as far as possible
arrangements which the College could apply to ameliorate the
effect of any reduction in the retirement age of the staff
involved. Although discussions have taken place, they have not
been fruitful principally because the Union through its
interpretation of Recommendation 12847 has felt free to pursue the
retention of 70 years as the retirement age. That retirements in
the interim have been dealt with on a one to one basis between the
College and the retiring staff without any formal arrangement with
the Union is an additional cause of concern to the Union. The
Court notes that in all cases, the financial position of staff who
retired before age 70 was enhanced beyond their service related
payment rights.
The Court is still of the view that discussion should take place
between the parties to formalise a guideline of arrangements to
apply to retiring staff. The methods used by the College at
present provide a substantial initial basis for such discussions.
These are:-
- the undertaking given to the Court by the College, that
staff aged 65 who do not qualify for a full pension and
wish to stay in employment will receive sympathetic
consideration.
- staff will remain in employment until the end of the
academic year in which their 65th birthday occurs.
- that occasional jobs/part-time work can be made
available to retired staff in certain circumstances.
- that added years may be applied for pension purposes.
- that contract work may be provided.
The Court therefore recommends that discussions take place between
the parties as early as practicable.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91248 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13452
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)(a)(b) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of mandatory retirement at
65 years of age for academic staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1987, the Governing Body of the College decided
to introduce compulsory retirement of academic staff at age 65
years. Up to that time acedemic staff had an expectation of
working until 70 years of age.
3. The Union objected to the decision and the matter was the
subject of a Labour Court investigation. In Labour Court
recommendation No. LCR12847 (1st May, 1990), the Court recommended
as follows:-
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties, it is
the Court's view that, in an industrial relations context,
the question of the legality of the Governing Body's
decision to retire its staff at age 65 is irrelevant unless
it is established the decision is contrary to the relevant
statutes. The Court notes that this had not been
established and accordingly does not deal with the question
in this recommendation.
It is clear to the Court and agreed by the parties, that
over many years it has been "custom and practice" with only
rare exceptions, to continue the employment of staff to age
70 unless earlier retirement was taken voluntarily. Up to
the Governing Body's decision of November, 1987, the
continuation of this practice was a reasonable expectation
of the staff employed before that date. It is also clear to
the Court that changed staffing and financial circumstances
in the College have created a situation in which management
is obliged to seek reasonable cost reductions in all areas
including staffing.
However, the decision of the College to introduce the lower
retirement age without adequate consultation and negotiation
with the Unions concerned, on behalf of their members, was
contrary to good industrial relations practice and cannot be
justified by claims of time or financial pressures. A
continuation of the situation would be equally unjustified.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties enter
discussions without further delay to establish how best the
concerns and requirements of both sides can be accommodated
and to formalise as far as possible the arrangements which
the College can apply to ameliorate the effect of any
reduction in the retirement age on the staff involved".
4. Subsequent to the issue of the above recommendation the
parties met to discuss its implementation. The parties
interpretation of the recommendation differed. The College sought
the implementation of the recommendation on the basis that
individuals who reached age 65 and wished to continue working
could apply to be retained and would have their cases treated
sympathetically. They could either approach the College
authorities directly or be represented by their Union. The Union
rejected this position and maintained that the Court had upheld
the right to work up to age 70 until such time as the parties
agreed a mechanism, covering all staff concerned, on the
introduction of the lower retirement age. As no agreement was
reached the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 19th February, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held on
26th March, 1991 and 26th April, 1991. The dispute was considered
by the Commission who reported to the Labour Court that in its
view no further efforts on its part would resolve the dispute and
with the consent of the parties, the matter was referred to the
Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990 for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on 2nd October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Court did not envisage private deals when it issued
its recommendation. The Court recommended that the parties
formalise a mechanism which would ameliorate the effect of any
reduction in retirement age on the staff involved.
2. Private deals are open to abuse by the employer. They
could favour some and victimise others. An overall agreement
would treat all staff equally.
3. In Trinity College, Dublin the implementation of a
reduction in the retirement age affected new staff only. The
rights and conditions of employment of existing staff were not
interfered with.
4. The trend internationally is for people to remain in
employment beyond normal retirement age. It is only a matter
of time before this trend is accepted in Ireland.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union has not entered into meaningful discussions as
recommended by the Court but instead has sought to revert to
the pre-1987 situation.
2. A large number of staff have retired since 1988 at age
65. Where individuals have made approaches to the College,
(26 in total) special arrangements have been put in place in
order to, as the Court recommended, "ameliorate the effect of
any reduction in the retirement age of the staff involved"
(details supplied to the Court). This demonstrates the
College's genuine efforts in this regard. The staff concerned
approached the College on an individual basis and did not wish
to be represented.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In recommendation 12847, the Court stated inter-alia that a
continuation of the retirement age of 70 years was unjustified in
existing circumstances. This is still the opinion of the Court.
However, the Court also proposed in recommendation 12847 that the
parties have discussions to formalise as far as possible
arrangements which the College could apply to ameliorate the
effect of any reduction in the retirement age of the staff
involved. Although discussions have taken place, they have not
been fruitful principally because the Union through its
interpretation of Recommendation 12847 has felt free to pursue the
retention of 70 years as the retirement age. That retirements in
the interim have been dealt with on a one to one basis between the
College and the retiring staff without any formal arrangement with
the Union is an additional cause of concern to the Union. The
Court notes that in all cases, the financial position of staff who
retired before age 70 was enhanced beyond their service related
payment rights.
The Court is still of the view that discussion should take place
between the parties to formalise a guideline of arrangements to
apply to retiring staff. The methods used by the College at
present provide a substantial initial basis for such discussions.
These are:-
- the undertaking given to the Court by the College, that
staff aged 65 who do not qualify for a full pension and
wish to stay in employment will receive sympathetic
consideration.
- staff will remain in employment until the end of the
academic year in which their 65th birthday occurs.
- that occasional jobs/part-time work can be made
available to retired staff in certain circumstances.
- that added years may be applied for pension purposes.
- that contract work may be provided.
The Court therefore recommends that discussions take place between
the parties as early as practicable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st October, 1991 ----------------
M.D./U.S. Chairman