Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95687 Case Number: LCR15083 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the extension of the 'added years' package to all staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
made by the parties has sympathy for the claimants case and
believes there is an inequity between two groups of employees.
However, because the practice has national implications the Court
believes that this claim should be pursued at a national level for
resolution.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95687 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15083
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY
(Represented by The Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the extension of the 'added years'
package to all staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The College's 'added years' pension provision applies to
academic and senior administrative staff. The pension fund for the
'professional grades' (Scheme No 1) was amalgamated in recent years
with the pension fund for other categories (Scheme No. 2). The
maximum 'added years' was increased from 7 to 10 and the definition
of eligibility was extended to include the Administrative Officer
grade. The Union claims that the scheme should be extended to
cover the general grades. The College rejected the claim. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 31st October, 1995. As the
parties failed to reach agreement the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th
December, 1995. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 7th
February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The merger of the two schemes was extremely contentious.
Scheme 1 was effectively bankrupt, while Scheme 2 was in
a very healthy financial state. The workers concerned
feel very aggrieved that, while they agreed to rescue a
potentially serious situation in agreeing to the merger,
the College refused to treat all staff in a fair and
equitable manner.
2. In recent years the College has extended the scheme to
include the Administrative Officer and Sub Librarian
grades. There is no reason why the scheme should not be
extended to cover a much wider cross-section of posts.
3. The added years benefit is applied to all grades in many
other universities (details supplied to the Court).
4. The existing provisions are unfair, inequitable and will
cause unnecessary divisions between staff. Management
had the opportunity of providing a non-discriminatory
benefit in 1991 and again in 1993. The College should
have altered the scheme to bring about equal treatment
for all staff.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The granting of 'added years' is a way of compensating
professional staff for the years spent acquiring
qualifications and requisite experience for appointment
to certain posts in the College. Recruitment
requirements with regard to qualification and experience,
as well as selection procedures for the College's
'professional grades' are quite separate to those
applying to general grades.
2. The College's Governing body has absolute discretion to
grant added years. However, it's power to grant those
added years is qualified and limited by reference to age,
qualifications, prior experience and prior accrued
pension benefits. The Governing Body has determined that
the 'cut off' grade for entitlement to 'added years' is
that of Administrative Officer.
3. Professional grades in the public service may be entitled
to 'added years' but general grades are not so entitled.
To further extend 'added years' to other College grades
would set a precedent having serious repercussions for
the public sector.
4. The extension would pose a significant cost for the
College and would increase the existing deficit in the
Joint Pension Scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
made by the parties has sympathy for the claimants case and
believes there is an inequity between two groups of employees.
However, because the practice has national implications the Court
believes that this claim should be pursued at a national level for
resolution.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th February, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T O'D/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO MR
TO TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.