Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92589 Case Number: LCR13800 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TENNANT AND RUTTLE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Contributory pension scheme for new employee(s).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the existing non-contributory pension scheme be
applied to the worker concerned directly in the dispute,
immediately.
The Court further recommends that the Union extend to Management
the same negotiating stance given to other companies in the Group
to negotiate variations in the Pension Scheme.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92589 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13800
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TENNANT AND RUTTLE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Contributory pension scheme for new employee(s).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the James Crean Group, is a
distributor and manufacturers' agent for confectionery products.
In July, 1992 a vacancy arose in the warehouse, and the position
was filled by the longest-serving temporary employee. The Company
insisted that the appointment would be on the same basis as all
new appointments since 1986, i.e. the employee would be given the
option to join the existing contributory pension scheme. This was
unacceptable to the Union who contended that the employee should
be a member of a non-contributory pension scheme. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission, and a conciliation
conference was held on the 24th of August, 1992. The Company was
prepared to make a concession in the case of the individual,
provided the Union would agree that all future employees would
join the contributory pension scheme. The Union did not agree to
this, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th
of September, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute on the
12th of October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's pension scheme for the Union's members was
changed from contributory to non-contributory in the early
1970s. After the Company de-merged from James Crean (J.C.M.)
in 1986, the issue of pension reverting to a contributory
scheme was never raised in negotiations by the Company. In
March, 1991 the Union raised the matter and advised that, if
the existing scheme was to be improved, the Union would be
prepared to consider the introduction of a contributory
scheme, on condition that the Company matched the
contributions made by workers. It is not acceptable that the
Company unilaterally alter conditions affecting its workforce.
2. The worker concerned has been a temporary warehouse
employee for 7 years. All other warehouse workers are members
of the non-contributory pension scheme. The worker should
also therefore be entitled to join the non-contributory
scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1986, the pension scheme for all James Crean Companies
changed from non-contributory to contributory. All employees
who joined the Company since 1982 are members of the
contributory scheme. If the Company concede the Union's claim
it would have repercussions regarding those employees who
joined the Company since 1986.
2. In view of the fact that 15 people have joined the Company
since 1986 it is hard to comprehend the Union's contention
that they were neither consulted about, nor aware of the
alteration in the pension scheme. The Union's insistence that
the Company recruit people on a non-contributory pension
scheme poses a threat to future recruitment.
3. The claim currently being pursued is contrary to Clause 5
of the P.E.S.P., which provides that no further
cost-increasing claims be imposed on employers, other than
those provided for in Clauses 1, 3 and 4 of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the existing non-contributory pension scheme be
applied to the worker concerned directly in the dispute,
immediately.
The Court further recommends that the Union extend to Management
the same negotiating stance given to other companies in the Group
to negotiate variations in the Pension Scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.