FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLIED IRISH BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Improved pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is for a non-contributory, non-integrated pension scheme on behalf of the porters, security guards, drivers, computer sorters and cleaners in the Bank. The Union is also seeking that all back funding will be covered by the Bank. There are approximately 350 workers involved.
Historically, a number of different pension schemes have operated in the Bank. Schemes applying to the workers concerned (non-clerical staff) differed to those applying to clerical staff.
Clerical staff who joined the Bank prior to the 1st of October, 1989, enjoyed a non-integrated pension. Non-clerical staff were part of an integrated scheme. Since the 1st of October, 1989, all staff pensions have been calculated on an integrated basis. The pension scheme is non-contributory and, up to 1996, would have been a defined benefit scheme. The scheme in operation since 1996 has been defined contribution in nature, and allows for a maximum two thirds pension following 40 years' service.
The Union made its claim for an improved pension under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, (PCW), in March, 1997. The Bank's reply was that the claim was precluded under Clauses 4 and 6 of the PCW. A number of meetings at local level, and conciliation conferences with the Labour Relations Commission, took place. The Bank claims that during these discussions, the Union changed its claim from seeking equal treatment for its members to seeking non-integrated pensions for all non-clerical staff. In February, 1999, the Bank made an offer to the Union. In respect of pensions, the offer stated that:
"....it has been agreed that SIPTU staff who joined AIB prior to October, 1989 will receive a non-integrated pension from the Bank on the same basis as other staff i.e. Bank Officials."
This would affect over 70% of non-clerical staff. The offer also agreed to review the situation regarding post-October, 1989 staff. Other proposals included an offer to reduce the working week by 2 hours for full-time staff, and a concession in respect of club subscription.
The offer was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of June, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of July, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union at all times sought a non-integrated pension scheme for the workers. Even pre-October 1989 workers, who would have received a non-integrated scheme, felt that the Bank's offer was unfair to post-October 1989 workers.
2. The Bank is hugely successful. The workers involved in the claim are the lowest paid in the employment of AIB. It is not unreasonable that the Bank should provide a non-integrated non-contributory pension, plus back funding for all members, regardless of their date of appointment.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Bank made a generous offer to the Union in February, 1999, (full details to the Court). The offer was rejected without even a chance to clarify or seek to resolve any issue of concern to the Union. The Bank wrote to the Union twice about the matter but received no reply.
2. Under the PCW and Partnership 2000, the Union can only seek improvements in pension schemes if they are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. The Bank's pension scheme is not out of line, and so is precluded under the national agreements.
3. The cost to the Bank of conceding the claim, particularly back money, would be considerable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the arguments put forward by both sides and is of the view that a case has not been established that the pension scheme is out of line and, therefore, the Court is satisfied that the claim is precluded by Clauses 4 and 6 of Partnership 2000.
However, the Court notes that a set of proposals was put forward, indicating that the Company was willing to harmonise and equalise pension benefits for those employees whose employment commenced prior to October, 1989. In an effort to resolve this dispute, the Court recommends further discussion on these proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th July, 1999.______________________
CON/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.