Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94201 Case Number: LCR14467 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TAYTO LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Clarification of Labour Court Recommendation 14262.
Recommendation:
The Court is disappointed that the parties have not been able to
resolve this issue amicably.
In LCR 14262 the Court considered it was unreasonable that the
employees concerned in this dispute were not included in the
Pension Scheme, and recommended that the parties agree a Scheme
which would be acceptable to all.
It was the intention that agreement would be reached on a Pension
Scheme to apply to clerical staff but which at the same time would
address the grievance of the staff concerned in this dispute. In
the light of what has developed and with a view to addressing the
issues outlined above the Court recommends the Company's Pension
proposal be accepted by the Union.
This Scheme to apply retrospectively for a period of 5 years and
to give a non-contributory period of ten years to the workers
concerned in this dispute on a person to holder basis.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94201 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14467
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TAYTO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Clarification of Labour Court Recommendation 14262.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1992 the Union submitted a claim on behalf of 14 office
workers for inclusion in the Management Non-Contributory
Pension Scheme. The Company introduced the scheme in 1970
but closed it in 1990 because of the very high costs
involved. A new Pension Scheme was introduced in 1991. The
Company offered this Scheme to the Union but it was rejected.
The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing, and in
LCR 14262 which was issued in December 1993 the Court
recommended as follows:
"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."
Subsequently the parties had a number of meetings but
agreement could not be reached on the introduction of a
suitable Pension Scheme. On the 12th January, 1994 the Union
sought clarification of LCR 14262. The Court agreed to a
further hearing and investigated the dispute on the 24th May,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The only offer made by the Company was to propose a
Pension Scheme already rejected by the Union prior to
the issue of LCR 14262. It has made no effort to
negotiate a satisfactory Scheme and has delayed
implementing a Pension Scheme for the past two years.
2. The workers concerned have been discriminated against
as Management only were offered entrance to the Scheme
which was supposedly open to clerical staff. As long
ago as 1978 clerical workers who sought entry to the
Scheme were refused.
3. The Union is prepared to agree to make contributions to
a suitable Pension Scheme but it must be an abated
Scheme.
4. The Company has made substantial profits in recent years
and cannot quote "cost" as a factor for not introducing
a comparable Scheme to that applying to Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Pension Scheme offered to the workers concerned
equates with most other Schemes in the industry. The
Company cannot agree to retrospection as it would cost
#108,000. The Union's claim was first submitted in
1992 and it is therefore unreasonable to pay
retrospection. The Company's Proposed Scheme is
contributory and retrospection would also impose severe
financial constraints on the claimants.
2. The majority of Pension Schemes are contributory and
integrated with Old Age Pension. The Scheme on offer,
(albeit not as beneficial as the Management Scheme) is
significantly better that the Sales/Craft Scheme and
more beneficial than the Scheme for General Operatives
both of which are contributory and integrated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is disappointed that the parties have not been able to
resolve this issue amicably.
In LCR 14262 the Court considered it was unreasonable that the
employees concerned in this dispute were not included in the
Pension Scheme, and recommended that the parties agree a Scheme
which would be acceptable to all.
It was the intention that agreement would be reached on a Pension
Scheme to apply to clerical staff but which at the same time would
address the grievance of the staff concerned in this dispute. In
the light of what has developed and with a view to addressing the
issues outlined above the Court recommends the Company's Pension
proposal be accepted by the Union.
This Scheme to apply retrospectively for a period of 5 years and
to give a non-contributory period of ten years to the workers
concerned in this dispute on a person to holder basis.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.