Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9296 Case Number: LCR13686 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the retirement lump sum payable to a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court in considering this case considered the views of
Teagasc as expressed in their letter of 13 March, 1992.
The Court however does not accept the view of Teagasc in this
case. The Court regards the employee concerned in this case as
a "worker" as defined in the Industrial Relations Acts since the
dispute relates to a dispute regarding conditions of work or
circumstances when he was in employment. The Court considers
that to refuse this worker access to the Court would be to
ignore the circumstances which have been/built up since the
introduction of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
The Court having considered all of the aspects of the case as
expressed by the worker concerned in his oral and written
submission does not find grounds for concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9296 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13686
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the retirement lump sum payable to a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1988 the worker was transferred under statute
from ACOT to Teagasc where he had been Director of
Operations/Deputy Director.
3. In the following year a new management structure was put
into place and the worker's post was abolished. The worker
retired under the Voluntary Early Retirement scheme with effect
from 14th August, 1989.
4. Before he retired the Government had approved a special
salary increase for his grade in accordance with the
recommendations of the Gleeson Report of the Review Body of
Higher Remuneration in the Public Section. The salary increase
was to be paid in 3 phases, 1st July, 1989, 1st April, 1989, and
1st October, 1990.
5. The worker's retirement lump sum was calculated in
accordance with his salary at the time of his retirment. In
December, 1989 a lump sum balance was paid which took into
account the first phase of the special pay increase. The worker
had expected that all three phases of the special increase would
be taken into account when computing his retirement lump sum.
The Union lodged a claim for a lump sum payment based on the
second and third phase increase of the special pay award. The
claim was rejected by Teagasc.
6. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Teagasc declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The
worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker
subsequently withdrew the dispute as he was given to understand
that Teagasc was agreeable to attend a conciliation conference
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Teagasc declined an invitation to attend a conciliation
conference and the worker re-entered his case to the Labour
Court under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing was held on 6th April, 1992. The worker agreed to
be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
7. Prior to the hearing, Teagasc, by letter dated 13th March,
1992, wrote to the Court as follows:-
"As the Court will be aware, Teagasc have discussed this
matter with the Departments of Agriculture and Finance and
the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General has
advised that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal
with this case. I am therefore to say that Teagasc cannot,
accordingly, participate in any proceedings on this matter
or implement any determination in the worker's favour.
Teagasc does not accept that there is merit in the worker's
case since he has been treated in exactly the same way as
other senior public servants who retired during the phasing
of the award in Report No. 30 of the Review Body on Higher
Remuneration in the Public Sector. That Report recommended
(paragraph 1.29) that consideration should be given to
taking the full increases recommended into account for the
purposes of adjusting lump sums; the Government, having
given full consideration to the question, decided that such
payments should only be adjusted as the pay increases
themselves came into payment. The lump sums of all public
servants coming within the ambit of the Report who retired
during the relevant period were dealt with accordingly."
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker felt obliged to retire early following the
reorganisation within Teagasc as his post was made
redundant and there were no meaningful duties for him to
carry out (Details supplied to the Court).
2. Had the worker remained at work it would have given
rise to a series of inequities and anomalies (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The worker was not made aware at the time of his
retirement that had he remained at work his retirement lump
sum would have been greater because of the increases due in
accordance with the recommendations of hte Gleeson Report.
4. In the light of circumstances then prevailing within
the organisation, whereby officers of other grades who
availed of the Early Retirement Scheme where phased special
pay awards were applying, were paid notional lump sums
based on the final phase of the awards, the worker expected
that his lump sum would be paid accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court in considering this case considered the views of
Teagasc as expressed in their letter of 13 March, 1992.
The Court however does not accept the view of Teagasc in this
case. The Court regards the employee concerned in this case as
a "worker" as defined in the Industrial Relations Acts since the
dispute relates to a dispute regarding conditions of work or
circumstances when he was in employment. The Court considers
that to refuse this worker access to the Court would be to
ignore the circumstances which have been/built up since the
introduction of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
The Court having considered all of the aspects of the case as
expressed by the worker concerned in his oral and written
submission does not find grounds for concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
18th June, 1992
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.