FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pre-retirement policy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that a pre-retirement policy (ref. 04-20-83), drawn up by AnCO in April, 1983, is in operation in FAS (formerly AnCO). FAS denies this, and claims that the policy was only a draft document and was never signed off by management. Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 4.1 and 4.2 deal with early and post-retirement. Section 3 deals with long-term planning for retirement. The Union provided letters dated from 1991 and 1996 as proof that the policy had been in use in AnCO and is still in use in FAS. It also referred to LCR13474, in which the Court recommended that the 5 year guarantee of pension should be retained by personnel transferring from AnCO to FAS.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation conference on the 28th of March, 2000, management reiterated its position but stated that it was producing a draft policy statement on retirement which would be available for Union consideration shortly. However, as agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of April 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of August, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A letter from FAS dated the 20th of November, 1996, proves that the policy was in operation. It states "I note that when Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual 04-20-83 was in operation in AnCO...".
2. A letter from the Union to management from October, 1991, also refers to the policy, with the Union seeking to make improvements or changes to it.
3. It was not until quite recently, when a worker sought the pre-retirement planning element of the policy, that management informed the Union that this section of the policy was not in use. This was the first time the Union had heard this, as managers in the regions were operating the policy.
FAS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A wide variety of draft organisation policies were drawn up by the personnel department in AnCO between 1981 and 1983. The draft policy on retirement was one such, but it was not implemented by AnCO or FAS.
2. Certain sections of the document, mainly sections 1 to 2.2 and section 4, reflect what is broadly the practice in the Organisation. Over the years, some managers may have responded to requests from individual staff members nearing retirement who sought to avail of certain facilities. However, the vast majority of staff who retired over the last 17 years have not had the draft policy applied to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The Court is satisfied that the Draft Policy on Retirement was never formalised.
However, the Court is also satisfied that a policy of delegation to line managers, of pre-retirement arrangements, existed in AnCO and continued to operate in FAS.
The Court recommends that the Organisation's proposals on retirement should have regard to the background outlined above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th August, 2000______________________
C.O'N.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.