FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FAS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning salary and superannuation entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. Salary: Gleeson Report No. 30
1. The worker held the post of Deputy Director General of AnCo. His salary was established at the mid point between the maximum of the Director General of AnCO and the maximum of the Directors in AnCo. The worker claims that his salary did not move as it should have done following the Gleeson Report. Adjustment to his salary should have taken effect from 1st July,1989 and not 1st January,1991.
2. The Company claims that Gleeson Report No. 30 led to increases in remuneration for Higher Civil Servants. As a result AnCo Directors benefited from the increases and as a consequence so did the worker. The Report did not make any recommendation in relation to the Director General of AnCO as FAS was about to be established. However, a special arrangement was subsequently agreed for the former Director General of AnCO, giving him a pensionable salary which had parity with Civil Service Deputy Secretary with effect from 1st January,1991.
3. Gleeson Report 35 - 1st April, 1994 to 1st May, 1995
When the worker was Deputy Director General of AnCo, his salary was determined as the mid-point between the maximum of the Director General of AnCo and Directors of AnCo (Directors of AnCo were equated with the grade of Assistant Secretary). When FAS came into being, the former Director General of AnCo had retired and there was no Deputy Director General post in FAS. Some of the Directors of AnCo became Assistant Directors General of FAS with the same salary and conditions, the AnCo Director Grade was not amalgamated with the FAS Assistant Director General Grade and for the purposes of pensionability, it maintained its parity with the Civil Service Assistant Secretary scale. The claimant's salary was adjusted from 1st January, 1991 based on his relationship with the former Director General of AnCo whose notional salary was revised for pension purposes from that date.
4. The Company claims that the worker's salary was increased in line with all increases for the Civil Service Assistant Secretary scale.
5. The worker claims that his salary should be recalculated for the period 1st January, 1990 to 1st May,1995, using the FAS Assistant Director General maximum rate (based on the Assistant Secretary pay range) for the bottom reference point in the determination formula of his salary.
6. Added years for pension purposes
The worker states that he should be awarded the 6.9 added years needed to secure a full pension at sixty-five and that the additional contributions already paid should be returned to him. The Company pointed out that the Department of Enterprise and Employment has advised that there are no grounds whatsoever for conceding added years to the worker. As a result of Labour Court Recommendation (LCR9119 refers) a Concessionary Purchase Scheme was introduced on a "once off" basis from the 1st December, 1987. It provided for the purchase of added years which the worker availed of and agreed to purchase 6.9 years to provide him with a full pension at age sixty-five.
7. Clawback of unpaid Spouses and Children's contributions
The Company states that the clawback of 6.9 years is subject to clawback as spouses and children's contributions were not paid in respect of this period. The worker argues that any clawback should be assessed on the basis of his salary at recruitment and that he should be allowed to pay this prior to retirement. The Company rejected the worker's proposal.
8. The worker requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. The Court investigated the dispute on the 1st August, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that the backdating of his salary, arising from the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, should be applied to his salary for the period July, 1989 to January,1991 on the same basis as that used from January,1991.
2. The Minister for Labour determined his salary in 1977 using internal relativities.That formula needs to be updated and restated on a similar internal basis. The new formula should be based on halfway between the maximum rates for FAS Grade 1 and Grade 3.
3. The worker claims that he should be awarded the 6.9 years needed to secure a full pension at sixty-five and that the additional contributions already paid should be returned to him.
4. The clawback of unpaid "Spouses and Childrens" contributions should not be deducted from the worker's gratuity, on retirement. The clawback should be assessed on his salary at recruitment and should be allowed pay this prior to retirement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the Gleeson Report No.30 increases in remuneration for Higher Civil Servants were awarded, which were passed on to AnCO Directors and consequently to the worker.
2. The worker benefited from any increases received either by the former Director General of AnCo or the Directors of AnCO (Assistant Secretary scale) by virtue of his upper and lower salary reference points.
3. The worker is a member of the FAS Closed Pension Scheme. This scheme does not have a provision for added years and his claim therefore cannot be conceded.
4. The worker availed of the opportunity to purchase added years at a concessionary rate as a result of Labour Court Recommendation - LCR9119.
5. The clawback of 6.9 years is subject to clawback as spouses and children's contributions were not paid in respect of this period. Staff who retired paid the clawback by deductions from their lump sum.The worker cannot be treated any differently from other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions and makes the following recommendation:-
1.Backdating arising from Review Body Awards
The Court recommends that awards arising from the Review Body should be applied with effect from 1st January, 1990.
2.Application of Review Body Awards
The Court takes the view that it was the intention of the parties that by means of the formula the salary of the Deputy Director General would be maximised.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the salary of the Deputy Director General be calculated by reference to the salaries applicable to the Assistant Directors General (maximum point) and the salary of the Director General (Deputy Secretary grade).
3.Formula for the future
The Court recommends that for the future the salary of the claimant should be fixed at a level half way between the salary applicable to FAS Grade 3 (maximum) and the salary applicable to the Director General (Deputy Secretary grade) or in the event that the grade is abolished the notional salary applicable to these posts for pension purposes.
4.Added years/Clawback of Contributions
The Court does not find grounds have been adduced to recommend concession of these claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
20th September, 1996______________________
L.W./U.S.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.