FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROOKS GROUP LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pension.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has businesses in Dublin, Cork and Sligo. The Unions represent two hundred members employed by the Company.
The Unions state that the current pension scheme has been in existence since 1950. It was improved in 1978 and 1995. The Unions are seeking:
(i) Reduction in the level of state integration from 1.5 x Social Welfare.
(ii) Introduction of spouse's pension for 'death in service' and 'death in retirement'.
(iii) A more favourable definition of pensionable pay to reflect earnings other than
basic pay.
In October, 2000, the Company received a request from the Unions to discuss improvements in the pension scheme. At a meeting held on the 29th of November, 2000, the Unions outlined their claims. The Company considered the claims and at a further meeting on the 14th of December, 2000, confirmed that, having evaluated the cost, it was not in a position to improve the scheme. This was not accepted by the Unions and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on the 9th of February, 2001. As no agreement was reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 3rd of May, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
- 2. The Unions are claiming the introduction of spouse's pension for 'death in service' and 'death in retirement'.
3. The Company has shared in the benefits of a highly successful construction industry in recent years and should be able to provide better pension benefits for its long serving employees who retire.
4. 1. In 1995 the pension scheme had been improved substantially. Having evaluated the cost of the claim, the Company was not in a position to make an improvement in the scheme.
2. Prior to 1995 manual and clerical employees had separate schemes. The schemes were then amalgamated, with an employee contribution of 3%, which was a significant saving for them.
3. The present scheme provides excellent benefits for its members. The Company, without prior commitment, is prepared to respond to the claim at the end of 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the pension contribution payable by employees is significantly below that which is normally payable in the case of contributory pension schemes. The Court believes that in the context of the Unions' agreeing to increase the employee contribution in line with industry norms, scope may exist to improve the benefits of the scheme.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties engage in further discussions with a view to identifying the extent to which employee contributions could be increased and the improved benefits which could, in consequence, be provided.
The Court believes that the absence of any provision in the scheme for a survivors pension, post retirement, is anomalous and should be addressed immediately and independently of any improvements arising from the discussions referred to above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th May, 2001______________________
M.O'C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.