FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Entitlement to free pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 9 workers. In the late 1960's the Chairman and founder of the Company made a commitment to the workforce to provide a free pension scheme. Subsequently two pension schemes were introduced. A 'Staff Scheme' in 1972 and a 'Works Scheme' for general workers in 1978 - both of the schemes being non-contributory. A number of general workers were promoted to the staff category and transferred into the staff pension at no cost to themselves.
The Staff Scheme had a higher level of benefit and in 1992 general workers were given the option to transfer to that scheme on the basis that they would contribute the extra 3% cost involved. The 9 workers concerned opted to join the staff scheme and paid the 3%. The Union claims that the 9 workers who opted to join the staff scheme should not be liable to pay the additional 3%. Management rejected the Union's claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 24th of November, 1997. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of December, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of February, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were informed in 1990 by Smurfit Group Pension Trustees Ltd. that they were not required to contribute into the Pension Fund and that the Company would pay the contributions due.
2. A number of workers who were promoted to the staff category were transferred into the staff pension scheme at no cost to themselves.
3. The 9 workers should not be treated less favourably than their colleagues who were transferred to the staff pension scheme. All the workers concerned were employed on similar terms and conditions when they received a commitment from the Company to provide free pensions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants were fully aware that prior to September 1993 (the time they joined the staff pension scheme) management had already refused to give them credit on the basis of staff scheme benefits.
2. A year and a month had expired after the initial option became available before this claim was raised. At that stage two of the workers concerned were already paying the additional 3%.
3. The workers' claim that not all of the details or information of their claim were made known to the chairman is rejected by Management. The chairman was aware of all of the information on the matter including the promotions and all of the documentation attaching thereto.
4. At the time the workers were awarded a free works pension other people were awarded a free staff pension. This was a reflection of status/positions held by the people concerned. Accordingly the company, upon promoting four workers, allowed these people not only to carry forward their free works pension but enhanced it in line with their colleagues who had been awarded the free staff pension. For the Company to have done otherwise would have been anomalous.
5. It is clear that the late Mr. Jefferson Smurfit when awarding free pensions was not only distinguishing between the status of staff and non staff but also intended that the pensions would be commensurate with the positions and status of the persons concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information supplied does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th February, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.