Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92454 Case Number: LCR13862 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the introduction of a pension scheme on behalf of 168 cleaners and 25 secretaries who are employed on a part-time basis.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that Clause 4 of P.E.S.P. allows for claims of this nature to be
processed the Court recommends that the parties agree to initiate
a feasibility study to examine the prospects of introducing a
pension scheme for the claimants; such study to specifically
examine the matter of funding and costing.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92454 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13862
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TRINITY COLLEGE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the introduction of a pension scheme on
behalf of 168 cleaners and 25 secretaries who are employed on a
part-time basis.
BACKGROUND:
2. Trinity College has a common pension scheme for all full-time
permanent staff. The scheme is non-contributory yielding a
maximum pension of 66 2/3% after 40 years' service.
3. In April, 1991 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of part-time
cleaners and secretaries for pension entitlements on a pro-rata
basis with the full-time staff under Clause 4 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The College rejected the
claim mainly on cost grounds.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 18th October, 1991 and 25th
June, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the
consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court
on 23rd July, 1992 for investigation and recommendation under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court
hearing took place on 28th October, 1992. (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The College is not opposed in principle to the claim. It
states that funding is a problem. As a party to P.E.S.P. the
onus is on the Government, through the Higher Education
Authority (H.E.A.) to provide the necessary funding.
2. The College, as a major employer of part-time workers in
the Public Sector, should set standards regarding their
conditions of employment.
3. There are a number of precedents for the Union's claim in
the Public Sector i.e. Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta.
4. Treating part-time workers less favourably than full-time
workers for pension entitlements is a form of cheap labour.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Part-time staff in similar employments are not normally
eligible for pensionability.
2. The College has not got the funds to absorb the extra
costs required. It is unlikely that the Government could
provide funds for pensions for part-time staff in Trinity
College in isolation and accordingly, the claim must be viewed
within the context of the Public Sector as a whole.
3. If, as a result of this claim, the College is faced with
costs for which funding is not available it will have to
review its position regarding the continued employment of
part-time staff.
4. Part-time staff who work over 18 hours per week, and who
retire after their 50th birthday receive a gratuity depending
on service.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that Clause 4 of P.E.S.P. allows for claims of this nature to be
processed the Court recommends that the parties agree to initiate
a feasibility study to examine the prospects of introducing a
pension scheme for the claimants; such study to specifically
examine the matter of funding and costing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
19th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.