Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92298 Case Number: AD92200 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 478/91 concerning the pension entitlements of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the additional
information provided at the hearing by the appellant but the
Court, in the absence of any clearer indications to the contrary,
can only conclude that the appellant misunderstood at least the
extent of the trustees authority if not the tenor of the late
personnel manager's remarks. It therefore upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92298 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C.
478/91 concerning the pension entitlements of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker joined the Company on 1st July, 1976. He
resigned voluntarily on 31st May, 1991, to take up a position
with another Company. The worker was a member of a
non-contributory pension scheme which was operated by the
Company. Under the rules of the pension scheme a worker who
leaves the Company of his own free will is not entitled to any
benefits under the scheme (details supplied). The trustees of
the pension scheme at the time were the general manager and
the personnel manager.
2. The worker claimed that, prior to leaving the Company, he
was informed by the then personnel manager on 6th May, 1992
that his pension entitlement was protected. The worker
claimed that he resigned voluntarily on this basis The claim
was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on
26th March, 1992. The findings and recommendation as set out
below issued on 9th April, 1992.
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to the following conclusions.
1. I believe what is confronted here is not a situation
with its origins in any malevolence by either party but
rather may be ascribed to a genuine misunderstanding on
the part of the worker.
2. Having very carefully weighed the evidence on both
sides and conscious of the fact that lamentably the
direct evidence of the Personnel Manager is impossible I
believe that the continuity of logic would support
Management's contention.
3. The rules and regulations of the pension scheme
clearly stipulate the loss of pension rights to an
employee who leaves the Company voluntarily. The late
Personnel Manager was aware of this and quite obviously
being a very experienced personnel manager he would have
avoided making a commitment against the tenor of the
rules and regulations and pressed by an applicant would
have referred that to a higher authority.
*"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above it is my conviction that the
claim must fail and I recommend accordingly".
(The worker and personnel manager were named in the
recommendation).
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to
the Labour court by the worker under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal in Limerick on 2nd September, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation stated that there
was a "genuine misunderstanding" on the part of the worker.
The worker did not mis-understand the then personnel manager
and was fully aware of the provisions of the pension scheme
and its application. The worker raised the matter with the
personnel manager for this reason before accepting the offer
from the other Company.
2. The personnel manager was widely experienced and fully
aware that he was going against the tenor of the rules of the
pension scheme. In this context he encouraged the worker to
secure alternative employment because there was little
possibility of a suitable assignment being offered within the
Company, under new ownership. A Company-prepared curriculum
vitae was shown to the worker by the personnel manager
(details supplied). This internal C.V. was not available to
the Rights Commissioner.
3. The worker understands that the 1990 Pensions Act does not
apply in his case. He tried to pursuade the other trustee at
a meeting of 17th May, 1992 that he was not seeking a legal
entitlement but a benefit which was and still is within the
discretion of the trustees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker claims that he received a commitment from the
then personnel manager that his pension benefits would be
protected. Prior to his leaving the Company, the worker had a
meeting with the general manager (also a trustee) on 17th May,
1992. At the meeting, he was told that it was not possible
for him to receive accrued pension benefit. The Company is
clear that trustees of the scheme cannot make deals with
individual members without referring back to Company
management.
2. The Company believes that it is under no obligation to
uphold pension rights or to transfer funds accumulated in a
non-contributory scheme. The provisions of the 1990 Pension
Act do not apply in this case especially as the worker's
leaving date was prior to January, 1993. The worker never
received a promise that his pension funds would be
transferred.
3. The curriculum vitae put forward by the worker is a
document prepared in early 1991 following a take-over of the
Company by Moulinex of France and was part of the information
sent to France to enable Moulinex assess the Company's
management team.
DECISION:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the additional
information provided at the hearing by the appellant but the
Court, in the absence of any clearer indications to the contrary,
can only conclude that the appellant misunderstood at least the
extent of the trustees authority if not the tenor of the late
personnel manager's remarks. It therefore upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
24th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.