Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95626 Case Number: LCR15020 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LTD (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Improvement to company pension scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the arguments put
forward by both sides and has studied the cost implications for
both the Company and workers involved in the claim. The Court has
concluded that on balance the Company's approach is the only
feasible way forward.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
Company's final proposals subject to further negotiations and
investigation as to the feasibility of having the terms of any
new scheme optional for existing staff.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95626 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15020
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SUGAR DISTRIBUTORS LTD
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Improvement to company pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union has submitted a claim for an improvement in the
company pension scheme for 27 drivers/helpers. The
drivers' earnings are substantially enhanced by incentive
earnings. The pension scheme is calculated on the basic
rate of pay. Currently their entitlement after forty
years service is £55.00 per week. The workers'
contribution is £4.00 per week. The Union claims that
the workers entitlement should be calculated on actual
earnings.
2. The Company has offered to provide for a pension of £105
per week (after forty years service). Workers with less
than 40 years would be required to contribute £17.50 per
week. Workers over 40 years would be required to
contribute an additional 25p. per week per year of
service.
3. The Union rejected the Company's offer on the grounds
that (a) it represented poor value for money, in
particular for the younger drivers and (b) the
contribution level was excessive for all drivers.
4. The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held in Carlow on the 7th September, 1995.
No agreement was possible at conciliation. Both sides
agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation on the 3rd November, 1995 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th
December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has sought an improvement in the Company's
pension scheme for the 27 drivers/helpers since 1986.
2. All earnings, including basic salary, bonus, overtime,
commissions, and any other earnings should be taken into
account when calculating an employee's pension
entitlements.
3. The Company's proposed contribution by the worker for an
improvement in pension entitlements is not acceptable to
the Union.
4. The Union proposes that the pension assets of Sugar
Distributors Ltd. be transferred to the pension scheme
operated by Irish Sugar Company Ltd..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive environment.
It must remain competitive. The Company cannot afford to
take on additional costs.
2. The Company's ability to fund an increased pension scheme
is limited.
3. The proposals as set out by the Company for an improved
pension scheme is the best that it can offer. The
package of conditions of employment available in Sugar
Distributors Ltd is very favourable and includes a
productivity scheme with high earnings to drivers, sick
pay scheme, subsistence payments, accident free bonus,
"clean cab" scheme and attendance bonus.
4. The Company rejects the Union's proposal that the
Company's pension scheme be subsumed into the general
Irish Sugar Company scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the arguments put
forward by both sides and has studied the cost implications for
both the Company and workers involved in the claim. The Court has
concluded that on balance the Company's approach is the only
feasible way forward.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the
Company's final proposals subject to further negotiations and
investigation as to the feasibility of having the terms of any
new scheme optional for existing staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
15th December, 1995 --------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.