FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was appointed Statutory Lecturer in the College in 1980, having come from University College Dublin (UCD). His pension rights were transferred and he joined Pension Scheme No. 1.
In 1982, the College introduced a Joint Pension Scheme (JPS). Persons were given the option of joining the JPS or remaining in the No. 1 scheme. The worker concerned decided to remain in the No. 1 Scheme. In 1989, the worker was appointed Associate Professor and again opted to remain in the No. 1 Scheme. In 1995, the worker applied for the post of Professor of Mathematics and was appointed to the post following an open competition. The worker again wished to remain in the No. 1 Scheme but was told that he would have to join the JPS.
The Union's case is that the worker will lose substantial pension benefits if he has to join the JPS. The loss to spouse's benefit will be even more substantial. The College's view is that the loss will be minimal. At the hearing, both sides presented sets of figures to support their case.
In 1984, some members of the College who were forced, on appointment, to transfer to the JPS brought their case to the Labour Court. LCR8936 found that members could, on promotion, be allowed to remain in existing pension schemes. Following the issuing of LCR8936, the parties agreed a memorandum in 1986 which accepted LCR8936 with some amendments. One of the amendments was that, on promotion, employees in Scheme No. 1 would be required to join the JPS.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 16th of April, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of May, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of August, 1998, in Galway. After the hearing, the Court asked both parties to supply further information. The hearing continued on the 20th of May, 1999, in Dublin.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker and his spouse will suffer considerable loss if he has to join the JPS. He was not aware that he would have to change pension schemes when he applied for the post of Professor in 1995. There was no mention of any specific pension scheme.
2. The worker did not know of the memorandum agreed between the parties in 1986. He was only made aware of it following his appointment in 1996.
3. The worker is not seeking an improvement of his conditions, but rather a retention of his present pension benefits. It is unfair that a promotion should result in a loss to the worker.
4. The College's arguments have centred on a knock-on effect and the need to change College statutes if the worker's claim is conceded. There has been no reference to what is right and equitable.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College was required to introduce the JPS in 1982 as there was a large deficit in the No. 1 Scheme. The obligation to transfer to the JPS is covered by College Statute 187 of 1986. Up to 326 staff members have transferred to the JPS since 1982. If the worker was to remain in the No. 1 Scheme it would require a change in Statute 187. This would lead to a knock-on effect if other members of staff wished to change pension schemes.
2. It is highly unlikely that the worker was unaware of the memorandum agreed between the parties in 1986, as there was widespread discussion on the subject at the time. Therefore, he would have known the terms and conditions applying to the post of Professor.
3. While the worker's pension and his spouse's pension would be less as a Professor in the No. 1 Scheme than as an Associate Professor under the JPS, the lump sum in the JPS would be considerably greater.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that this matter has been unresolved since 1996, while in the meantime the claimant has been allowed perform the duties of the new post without ever having formally accepted that particular post.
While accepting that discussions had been taking place initially between the parties to try to resolve the difficulties, the Court finds it unacceptable that this arrangement should have been allowed continue for such a lengthy period.
The Court has found from the submissions, both written and oral, made to it that:
- It was a condition of employment in the post of Professor of Mathematics that the JPS pension scheme would be the scheme associated with the post.
- The College never made available to the claimant figures showing the differing benefits which would become available to him on joining the JPS pension scheme.
- The College assumed that the claimant was aware before applying for the post of the pension scheme which was associated with it.
The claimant has never formally accepted the chair of mathematics offered to him by the National University of Ireland on the 25th of January, 1996.
- The College assumed that the claimant was aware before applying for the post of the pension scheme which was associated with it.
At the original hearing, the management position was that the claimant was aware of the requirement to transfer to a new pension scheme when applying for the post, that there were differences between the new and the old schemes, but overall there was not significant financial loss to the claimant.
The claimant's position was that he did not know he would have to transfer, that he had never signed the forms indicating acceptance of the post, and that there was a significant financial loss in transferring.
Subsequent to the first hearing, figures were agreed between the parties, showing that, while there may be some extra benefits arising from changing schemes, there are significant financial differences in the two schemes, with significant loss to the claimant.
The Court finds that the procedures in place to deal with personnel changing posts are unsatisfactory. While general information is readily provided, specific figures do not seem to be provided to individuals before they accept appointments. If this had been done in this case, the individual would have had the necessary information to enable him to make an informed decision whether to accept or reject the offer of this post.
While the Union accepts that personnel applying for similar posts to this one must transfer to the new pension scheme, its argument is that in this case the claimant was not aware of the necessity to transfer, and constantly indicated his unwillingness to sign his acceptance of the new post if it required him to transfer from his existing pension scheme.
While the Court is satisfied that it is a condition of this post that the successful applicant must transfer, the Court recommends in this specific case, given the background, timescale and financial effects, that,
- the parties enter into discussions immediately to try to arrive at a compromise position in order to minimise the financial effects on the claimant.
- the parties enter into discussions immediately to try to arrive at a compromise position in order to minimise the financial effects on the claimant.
If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Court will issue a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd June, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.