Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94415 Case Number: LCR14674 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a pension scheme for part-time employees.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
scheme as proposed by the College is not appropriate to meet the
needs of part-time staff. In the circumstances it is the view of
the Court that the College and the Union consider current trends
and practices regarding the relationship between part-time and
full-time staff and seek to negotiate the introduction of a
pension scheme which will provide accordingly a reasonable pension
for these workers.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94415 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14674
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TRINITY COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a pension scheme for part-time employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 210 part-time workers who
are employed by the College as cleaners, secretaries and
catering assistants. The Union's claim was first submitted
in 1991 and seeks, on a pro-rata basis, the same pension and
related entitlements that apply to full-time staff. The
Union's claim is detailed as follows:-
(a) A non-contributory non-integtrated pension scheme based
on 1/60 of pensionable salary for each year's membership
of the scheme with a maximum of 40/60 or 66.6% after 40
years.
(b) a death in service benefit of ten times pensionable
salary in respect of members who have dependents and
four times pensionable salary for members without
dependents.
(c) The scheme should apply to all part-time employees who
work at least 8 hours per week.
The claim was rejected by Management. The dispute was the
subject of a Labour Court hearing and in November, 1992 the
Court issued LCR13862 which recommended that
"... the parties agree to initiate a feasibility study
to examine the prospects of introducing a pension scheme
for the claimants. Such study to specifically examine
the matter of funding and costing."
Management subsequently undertook a feasibility study and
estimated the cost of meeting the Union's claim at #167,178
p.a.
The College informed the Union that it could not concede the
claim because of the cost involved. In April, 1994 the
College put forward a pension scheme comparable to existing
pension schemes for full-time staff in the Public Service.
The scheme would be co-ordinated and provide the following
benefits:-
(a) on retirement or ill-health
- 1/80 of net pay (i.e. pay less twice the single rate
of Social Welfare Old Age Pension) per year of
pensionable service, subject to a maximum of one half of
net pay.
- a lump sum of 3/80 of pay per year of pensionable
service subject to a maximum of 1.5 times annual pay
(b) on death in service
- a gratuity of one year's pay.
The Union rejected the proposal. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and three conciliation
conferences were held in July, 1994. As no agreement was
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the
9th August, 1994. The Court investigated the dispute on the
31st August, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed scheme of Management is not based on the
T.C.D. full-time scheme, but on the inferior standard
Public Sector model. The proposed scheme would be
co-ordinated by reference to the relevant Social Welfare
Benefits. This would be inconsistent with the full-time
employees' pension scheme in the College which has
always been uncoordinated. The death in service
proposal of a gratuity equivalent to one year's pay is
less favourable on a pro-rata basis than the terms
available to full-time staff. The College proposal
would apply to part-time workers who work at least 15
hours per week. The Union requires a minimum entry
requirement of 8 hours weekly.
2. Since 1980 part-time workers have received the same
rates of pay on a pro-rata basis as their full-time
colleagues. Since pensions are effectively deferred
pay, these too should be based on the pro-rata formula
3. The College's part-time workers are less favourably
treated than job-sharers, who enjoy pension rights.
Yet, generally the former work longer hours. The
working hours and conditions of part-time secretarial
staff are identical to those of secretarial job-seekers.
Yet, a number of part-time secretarial staff have
considerably longer service than some of their
job-sharing colleagues.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would not lead to
identical claims from other part-time workers in the
Public Sector. Such workers are likely to seek the same
pensions on a pro-rata basis as full-time workers in
their own employment. It is most unlikely that these
part-time Public Sector workers will either seek, or be
granted, the same pension rights, on pro-rata basis as
T.C.D. full-time staff.
COLLEGE'S AND DEPARTMENTS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College cannot apply the full-time pension scheme
to the workers concerned on a pro-rata basis. The vast
majority of pension schemes are co-ordinated in order to
ensure that no one receives a pension exceeding a
maximum of two-thirds of final salary. A number of
benefits provided by the existing College Pension Scheme
are more generous than those provided for public
servants generally and the funding authorities want
these removed. It is therefore impossible for the
College to concede this claim.
2. The workers concerned have comparatively advantageous
conditions of employment in relation to pay rates and
security of employment. The College provides a tax-free
cash sum gratuity to part-time staff on retirement.
3. The scheme offered by Management is directly comparable
with those applying to similar full-time staff in the
Public Sector who are in the A1 PRSI category. The
College will be in a position to fund this scheme.
Part-time workers in the Public Service are not at
present eligible for occupational pensions.
Accordingly, the offer of pensionability to the
claimants is a major innovation.
4. The State, as employer and principal financer of T.C.D.
is fundamentally opposed to concession of pensionability
on the basis sought by the Union. Concession would
provide benefits to the claimants which would be:-
(i) excessively generous in terms of total
post-retirement income relative to earnings while
in employment
(ii) superior to long standing arrangements applicable
to comparable full-time workers elsewhere in the
public sector
(iii) would involve prohibitive additional costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that the
scheme as proposed by the College is not appropriate to meet the
needs of part-time staff. In the circumstances it is the view of
the Court that the College and the Union consider current trends
and practices regarding the relationship between part-time and
full-time staff and seek to negotiate the introduction of a
pension scheme which will provide accordingly a reasonable pension
for these workers.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.