FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR163/99/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute concerns the worker's claim for payment of a superannuation benefit and a Christmas grant. The claimant was employed by the Union for over thirty years. He was also a member of the Union for forty-five years before his retirement.
The worker referred his claim to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation issued on the 28th of June, 1999, as follows:-
"I recommend that (the worker) accepts that he has no entitlement
to the Retirement Grant arising from his employment by the Union."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The claimant appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 4th of August, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 13th of September, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was a fully paid up member of the Union for forty-five years. It was a condition of his employment that he remain a member of the Union and subscriptions were deducted at source by the payroll section. As the claimant was unemployed prior to his 65th birthday he would have been excused from making contributions at that time.
2. In accordance with Union rules the claimant applied for superannuation benefit as a member of the Union following his 65th birthday. He received no replies to his correspondence dated the 22nd of April, 1998, the 12th of May, 1998, the 23rd of June, 1998 and the 14th of July, 1998, despite speaking to the General Secretary on the 10th of June, 1998.
3. The Union refused to allow another employee to attend the Rights Commissioner's investigation. It also objected to the investigation under the Industrial Relations Acts and, consequently, the merits of the claim were not examined.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's claim to a pension entitlement as an ex-employee is governed by the terms of a High Court settlement dated the 21st of July, 1995, and no further claim can be made.
2. Any claim in respect of retirement (superannuation) benefit or Christmas grant is a claim by a member of a Union under Union rules and is not a 'Trade Dispute'. Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make a determination.
3. On the 20th of April, 1998, the claimant was informed that he was not in "benefit" and, therefore, was not eligible for superannuation payment. The claimant had not been excused from making contributions as he had not furnished the necessary documentation from Social Welfare. In addition, the claimant did not follow the appeals procedure of which he should have been aware.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court concurs with the outcome of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and considers that the issue of an entitlement to a retirement benefit arising from the appellant's membership of a trade union is not an issue arising directly from his employment. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the issue as this is not a dispute in his capacity as an employee.
It is the view of the Court that the Union should indicate to the appellant a mechanism under which an appeal of the decision of the Union can be made.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st October, 1999______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.