Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92472 Case Number: LCR13795 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MOUNT CARMEL HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the removal of a bar on the entry of new members to a pension scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that it is inequitable that a minority of
the staff enjoy the benefits of a Pension Scheme, while other
staff members are precluded from joining the scheme. The Court is
also of the opinion that the hospital acted incorrectly in
unilaterally debarring staff from entry to the scheme.
The Court notes there is doubt as to the level of take up of any
scheme which might be introduced with a consequent implication for
the cost of any such scheme.
The Court considers the parties should request the staff to
indicate their intentions in this regard.
In the light of the result of this survey, the management and the
union should discuss the cost implications of opening up the
membership of the scheme. Any such discussions should take
account of the financial constraints under which the hospital is
operating.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92472 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MOUNT CARMEL HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the removal of a bar on the entry of
new members to a pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of approximately 40 household/catering
staff. The hospital introduced a pension scheme in 1987. Of the
250 workers in the Hospital approximately 30 joined the scheme.
The option to join the scheme was open to all staff up to 1989
when it was withdrawn by Management due to financial constraints.
The Union is seeking the restoration of the option to join the
scheme on behalf of the workers concerned. Management rejected
the claim. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 9th June, 1992. A conciliation conference was
held on the 27th July, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on 7th August, 1992. A Court hearing was held on the
14th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management is discriminating against the workers concerned
by not giving them access to the pension scheme. The Company,
without consultation with the Union, took a unilateral
decision which has had an adverse effect on the workers. A
pension scheme enables workers to provide for their
retirement.
2. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress allows for
the introduction of pension schemes where none exist. In this
case a scheme already exists and approximately thirty workers
are already members of the scheme (including two
household/catering staff). By not allowing the workers
concerned access to the scheme the Hospital is treating them
in a most unjust fashion.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital receives no financial support from the
Government and is 90% dependent on V.H.I. fees for its income.
The V.H.I. experienced a financial crisis in 1989 and private
hospital prices were frozen for eighteen months; a further
period of restriction continued to December, 1991. The
Hospital suffered operating losses from 1989 to 1991 (details
supplied to the Court). The Hospital has entered into a
further agreement with V.H.I. until 31st December, 1994.
2. Management, when faced with reductions in 1989, had to
effect a wide range of cut-backs which included restricting
the entry of all grades to the pension scheme. The Hospital
agrees that the Union's claim is valid, but it can only be
conceded in an affordable manner, at a future date. At the
present time the Hospital cannot afford the cost of giving
access to workers to the scheme. The Hospital regrets that it
is not in a position to meet the claim at present but hopes to
put a scheme in place as soon as funding can be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that it is inequitable that a minority of
the staff enjoy the benefits of a Pension Scheme, while other
staff members are precluded from joining the scheme. The Court is
also of the opinion that the hospital acted incorrectly in
unilaterally debarring staff from entry to the scheme.
The Court notes there is doubt as to the level of take up of any
scheme which might be introduced with a consequent implication for
the cost of any such scheme.
The Court considers the parties should request the staff to
indicate their intentions in this regard.
In the light of the result of this survey, the management and the
union should discuss the cost implications of opening up the
membership of the scheme. Any such discussions should take
account of the financial constraints under which the hospital is
operating.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
16th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.