FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON TUGS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the retirement of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a tug master with Shannon Marine in 1987. This Company was subsequently taken over by Shannon Tugs and the worker's employment was continued by that Company. The dispute relates to the retirement of the worker who has reached the age of 65 years. The Company maintains that the worker must retire at 65 years. The Union claims that the Company has no policy regarding retirement at age 65. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 16th January 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th August, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 9th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned reached his 65th birthday on the 28th October, 1995 - the normal date for retirement. However, neither Shannon Marine or Shannon Tugs had a policy regarding retirement at age 65 and in the early stages of operations there was at least one worker who would have worked to his 70th birthday.
2. On the 23rd January, 1995 the worker sought an extension beyond his 65th birthday giving reasons for his request (details to the Court). The Company made no effort to respond, within a normal time, to his request. The worker reasonably concluded that his request had been agreed.
3. While the parties concluded an agreement in April, 1995 no discussions took place on the retirement age and no mention of this was made in the agreement.
4. The Company has treated the worker in an irresponsible, unfair and unjust manner. The Union suggests a settlement of £3,000 plus bonus accrued in full and final settlement of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is standard policy that all staff retire on reaching 65 years of age. The Company's pension scheme allows for retirement and payment of benefit at 65 years.
2. Given the nature of the industry and the hazards inherent therein, the Company is required for insurance and other purposes to operate a clear and consistent policy regarding retirement from active service.
3. The worker was aware of his imminent retirement some six months prior to the actual date. Another tugmaster retired as per Company procedure in June, 1995. The Union had agreed that two workers from the 'mate' grade would be upgraded on the retirement of two tugmasters (the worker who retired in June, and the worker concerned).
4. The Company accepts that the worker has given exemplary service. However, it must continue to operate the retirement policy without exception. The Company could not consider making an exgratia payment to the worker as it would set an unfavourable precedent.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given all of the circumstances, recommends that the Company pay to the claimant the sum of £3,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.