Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93474 Case Number: LCR14262 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TAYTO LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
The inclusion of 14 office workers in the management non-contributory pension scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the Pension Scheme in question was
designed to provide cover for both Management and Office staff.
The Court considers it was unreasonable that the office staff
concerned in this complaint were excluded from the scheme
The Court, however, recognises that the Pension scheme referred to
above is now closed.
Given all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the
parties urgently discuss the issue with a view to agreeing a
scheme in respect of the staff concerned, arranging for its early
implementation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93474 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14262
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TAYTO LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. The inclusion of 14 office workers in the management
non-contributory pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1970 Tayto Limited introduced a non-contributory pension
scheme for Management and office staff. The Company operates a
number of pension schemes as follows:
1. Tayto Trade Scheme - for all factory operatives at Tayto
Factory, Coolock.
2. Salesmen Pension Scheme, which also incorporates
craftsmen based in Coolock.
Above Schemes are contributory and have been operational
since the mid 1970's.
3. Management Pension Scheme - Directors, Management,
Supervisory, Company Accountants and Company Secretaries.
This scheme is not contributory.
The dispute concerns 14 office staff (13 female and 1 male) who
are not part of any pension scheme. On 31st January, 1992 the
Union applied on behalf of the 14 office staff for access to the
management pension scheme and were refused. The Company stated
that due to the very high costs involved, the particular pension
scheme had closed in March, 1990. A new pension scheme was
introduced in May, 1991 and the 14 office staff could join this
scheme. The Union rejected the Company's response on the grounds
that its members fulfilled the specified requirements for
membership of the old pension scheme.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and
following a conciliation conference on 17th July, 1993 the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on 10th August, 1993 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th September, 1993
(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the pension scheme was introduced in 1970, a number
of staff members have tried to join the scheme without
success. In 1978 and in 1983 a shop steward approached
management on behalf of herself and another member to join the
management pension scheme. On both occasions she was refused
and no explanation was given.
2. In May, 1992 the Union met Management with a view to
having its 14 members who are not part of any pension scheme
included in the management scheme. Management advised that
since 1990 the old pension scheme no longer existed and that a
new contributory scheme was available from 1991 instead. The
Union rejected this as its members, who were fully qualified
to join the old pension scheme, applied for membership on a
number of occasions before 1990 and were refused. The
management pension scheme, being non-contributory, is more
beneficial to the workers concerned.
3. The Company claimed that the particular scheme closed for
membership in 1990 and yet a male accountant was allowed to
join the pension scheme in 1992, two years after its supposed
closure. The Union contends that there is a certain
discrimination against female members as only 5 out of the 37
personnel in the scheme are female.
4. The 14 workers are prepared to pay a 5% contribution even
though the scheme is non-contributory, in order to join the
management pension scheme. The Company has rejected this
offer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pension scheme which was introduced in 1970 was always
intended for management only. The first official approach
by the Union, to have clerical staff included in the scheme,
was not made until 1992. Because of high costs the old
pension scheme ceased in 1990 and a new scheme which is
available to all staff was introduced in 1991. The Company
considers the new pension scheme to be very fair. It rejects
any implication that there has been discrimination against
female members of staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the Pension Scheme in question was
designed to provide cover for both Management and Office staff.
The Court considers it was unreasonable that the office staff
concerned in this complaint were excluded from the scheme
The Court, however, recognises that the Pension scheme referred to
above is now closed.
Given all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the
parties urgently discuss the issue with a view to agreeing a
scheme in respect of the staff concerned, arranging for its early
implementation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________
6th December, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
C.O'N./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.