FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO LABORATORIES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disptue concerning the terms of a pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Up to 1993 the Company operated two pension schemes. Operative staff had a contributory integrated scheme. Staff grades were in a non-contributory non-integrated scheme. On 1st January, 1993 the Company introduced a non-contributory integrated scheme for all hourly paid grade and any new clerical employees. Existing clerical employees were to be "red circled" under the old scheme. In February, 1994 a worker was appointed to a temporary supervisor post and was made permanent foreman in July, 1995. Another worker was appointed as a Grade C clerk. The Union claims that both workers should be appointed onto the old non-integrated pension scheme. Management rejected the claim. The disptue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 11th of April, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the disptue was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 17th of June, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes in the staff pension scheme proposed by the Company in 1992 and subsequently introduced were not acceptable to the Union. A specific deal was concluded in the context of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. No mention was made of any change in the pension arrangements for staff grades. Management went ahead and implemented changes in pension arrangements for future entrants to staff grade despite the Union's objections of June and August, 1992.
2. The two workers concerned have been placed in a less favourable scheme while all their staff grade colleagues retain non-integrated status.
3. The Company has unilaterally imposed the change in the pension scheme contrary to the normal requirement to negotiate such an alteration in clear breach of the PESP and PCW. The Company's unilateral action was highlighted after the two workers raised their personal situations. Management cannot impose change without agreement or the use of normal negotiating procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing Company pension plan gives an excellent benefit. The changes proposed, accepted and implemented in January, 1993, have made the pension scheme more equitable. It has not diminished the benefits promised to any worker.
2. The terms of the new pension rules were discussed and accepted by all parties to the review held in 1993. In this review, while it was agreed that no existing salaried staff member (prior to January, 1993) would have an integrated pension benefit applied to them, all newly appointed salaried staff would be eligible to an integrated pension benefit.
3. This policy has applied since 1993, without exception. Over the past few years almost 60 new salaried staff have been appointed and gained benefit under the integrated pension scheme. No formal complaint was made by the Union about the new rules until 1995, when the claimants were appointed.
4. The claim is unjustified and has significant cost implications for the Company. There has been no loss to either worker from the changes introduced.
5. Both workers signed and accepted new contracts of employment which explicitly stated that they accepted their new posts, with the qualification that their pension would be integrated.
6. Concession of the claim could have significant repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the issue of the agreement on the Pension Scheme is not before the Court.
The Court notes the matter is the subject of dispute between the parties (letter of 6th of May, 1997 refers)
Accordingly the Court has only considered the position of the two claimants at this time.
It is clear that on promotion the claimants signed contracts clearly specifying they would be and remain parties to an integrated non-contributory pension scheme.
In the circumstances the Court does not find there are grounds to concede the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
6th October, 1997______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.