FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute regarding pension entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a former senior executive who was employed by the Company for 47 years, until his retirement in 1984. He claims that the Company has failed to honour in full its commitment as to the conditions under which he worked and under which he retired, with the result that the salary on which his pension is based is approximately 20% below its correct level. The claimant states that, although he raised the matter with the Company continually over the years, it has failed to address the point at issue. Having failed to have the matter addressed to his satisfaction by the Company, the claimant referred the dispute to the Labour Court, on the 29th May, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 26th June, 2000. The Company declined to attend the Court hearing, but did provide the Court with a written statement.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the salaries of the senior executive group were adjusted, the same percentage increase that applied to the Assistant General Manager's salary applied to the others within the group, effective from the same date. The claimant always benefited from those increases which, in time, were reflected in the level of his pension at retirement. A number of his pensioner colleagues, who were formerly within the senior executive group, approached the Company for pension increases arising from the maintenance of a salary relationship which existed over many years between Civil Service Secretary General level and CIE Assistant General Manager, with the consequent follow-on effect through the senior group of pensioners. Subsequently, the Company conceded pension increases, totalling around 20%, to a number of the claimant's pensioner colleagues. As the pension increase applied to the retired Assistant General Manager, it was assumed by the claimant that it should have applied, also, to the other members of the senior executive group, himself included.
2. The Company has side-stepped the issue by reiterating that the claimant has received pension increases, each July, under the terms of the various "National Understandings". Those increases were extended to all public servants including the claimant's pensioner colleagues within the senior executive group and are separate from the additional increase being sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The CIE Group has almost 7,000 pensioners who are in receipt of pensions in accordance with the provisions of the schemes of which they are members. Each scheme is based on specific statutory provisions, apart from the provisions of the Pensions Act and the Trust Deeds which apply to them, all of which must be scrupulously complied with. There are Pension Committees, of which 50% are members nominated by the Company, the remaining 50% by the Trade Unions, which monitor the schemes on a regular basis.
2. The claimant is in full receipt of his pension entitlement. He has been treated on the same basis as all other salaried staff who were on similar scales at the date of retirement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to this claim, which has been the source of contention for the claimant for quite some time. Unfortunately, the Company chose not to be represented at the hearing but did submit a short written statement. The Court is in a position where it is making a recommendation on an issue for which incomplete information is available due to the unsubstantiated assertions which were made. The Court has no option but to come to a conclusion on its interpretation of those assertions.
The Court is satisfied that during his long period of employment the claimant's salary was adjusted on an individual basis taking into account increases granted to other more senior executives in the Company, including the Assistant General Manager, whose salaries were adjusted following on from the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector.
It is not disputed that his pension has been adjusted on an annual basis every July in line with the recognised adjustments granted to retired public servants, which clearly provide for increases in line with current salaries within the public service.
However, the claim relates to a requirement to adjust further his pension increases in line with salary adjustments which followed from the review body.
It is the Court's view that no definitive evidence of a direct link has been adduced by the claimant and the Court is, therefore, satisfied that there is no basis for the extension of such post-retirement increases to him. While he secured such increases in employment, there would appear to have been no guarantee that such increases would apply post-retirement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st July, 2000______________________
MK/MKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.