FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CIE - AND - FIVE EMPLOYEES DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged failure to honour pension entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned held management positions with the Company prior to their retirement in 1987. It is alleged that the Company has failed to honour pension commitments given to them at that time.
The workers claim that their pensions were reviewed each year based on a long -standing relationship between the salaries of senior C.I.E. staff and salaries for senior management grades in the Civil Service.
The workers state that increases in their pensions were paid each year up to the time the Company was reorganised under the Transport (Reorganisation of C.I.E.) Act, 1986. It is claimed that from July, 1988, special increases due to them have not been reflected in their pensions.
The Company indicated by letter to the Court that it would not be attending the hearing.
The dispute was referred by the workers to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and then agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has always been a long standing relationship between salaries paid to senior management in the Company and salaries paid to senior management grades in the Civil Service.
2. The Company has altered the terms and conditions of employment for the staff concerned without consultation or agreement.
3. The pensions of the staff concerned have now fallen significantly behind senior management grades in the Civil Service.
4. The reorganisation of the Company under the Transport (Restructuring of C.I.E.) Act, 1986 guaranteed that conditions of employment would be maintained.
5. The Company should pay the increases in pensions due to the staff concerned in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company did not attend the hearing or make a submission. However, the Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions, which were made by the claimants. The Court notes that the claimants, in support of their case, placed considerable emphasis on a CIE Board Minute No.15190, dated 13th November 1974, which stated
"Pensions - retired salaried grades. General Manager sought authority to review pensions of retired salaried grades annually in line with the Government decision on public service pensions. Authority granted subject to post factum report being made to Board”
and also on the fact that, up to the re-organisation of CIE under the Transport (Reorganisation of CIE) Act, 1986 which came into effect from 2nd February 1987, the Board Minute had been implemented by way of a direct link between the Civil Service General Service Secretary (C.S. GSS) and the Assistant General Manager (A.G.M.) CIE with consequential adjustments for other grades.
The Court understands how this has led to an expectation on the part of the claimants about future pension adjustments.
The Court however, having given careful consideration to the matter, is of the view that the Board minute per se and the manner of its implementation, did not copper-fasten a link between the C.S. GSS and the A.G.M. for pension purposes, which was intended to last ad infinitum, particularly in view of the passing of the Transport Act of 1986, with the consequential re-organisation of CIE and the changing methods of pay determination in the Public Service. Indeed it is regrettable that no dialogue took place with the claimants at the appropriate time and that they were not advised of the changes in the pay relationships which resulted from the re-organisation of CIE and the setting up of the three separate companies.
It is significant that the claimants retired following the vesting day on which the provisions for the Transport (Reorganisation of CIE) Act, 1986, came into force. The Act guaranteed that
- "every......officer or servant of the Board shall not, while in the Service of the Board ... be brought to less beneficial conditions of service than the scale of pay to which he was entitled and the conditions of service to which he was subject immediately before the vesting day ......"
The Court is of the view that the relationship between the A.G.M and the C.S GSS was a “reference point” for the purposes of increasing salaries while they were in employment. For the purposes of post retirement pension increases the Court is satisfied that in implementing the Board minute, it was the intention to ensure that these increases would move in line with increases in salaries for the positions which they held when they were in employment.
The Court believes that an explanation is due to the claimants about the apparent change, which took place in the manner in which the Board minute was being implemented up to 1987 and whether or not this change had Board approval. The Court therefore, recommends that the Company should outline to the claimants how the Board minute is now being applied and who the comparators are in the new organisation for the purposes of post retirement increases for the claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th October, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.