FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - AND - AMICUS MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Retirement gratuity in regional medical library.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of 5 part-time library staff for the introduction of a retirement gratuity for those employed at the Regional Medical Library.
The Regional Medical Library was established in 1979 as a funded project of the National Institute for Higher Education. The Union claims that the gratuity being sought for its members would be along the lines as that already in place under the Local Government (Superannuation) (Gratuities) Regulations,1984 for Health Board and Local Authority employees with a similar part-time temporary employment record.
Management rejected the claim on the basis that it had neither the sanction nor the funding to concede the claim. It states that it is currently looking at the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001, for all of its part-time employees.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st February, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th May, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have provided long service to the University and should receive some form of benefit when they retire.
2. The claimants should at least be no worse off than that which applies to long-serving temporary Health Board staff alongside whom they have worked for many years.
3. The University of Limerick has consistently abused its position as an employer by seeking to maximise the number of employees on fixed-term and part-time contracts.
4. It is unfair that the Regional Medical Library staff should be deprived of the minimum retirement benefits on the grounds that management wishes to preserve its discriminatory treatment of part-time and temporary staff.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staff concerned were aware that there was no provision for a retirement gratuity in respect of their positions at the Regional Medical Library. Furthermore, no provision has ever existed in relation to a retirement gratuity.
2. The Pension Scheme in existence at the University is known as the University of Limerick Superannuation Scheme. Access to this scheme is confined to employees holding permanent, whole-time posts. Temporary employees of the University based at the Regional Medical Library or elsewhere at the University are, therefore, not eligible to join.
3. The Social Partnership agreement 2003-2005 provides that no cost increasing claims by Trade Unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment, other than those provided for in clauses 19.18 and 19.19 will be made or processed in the currency of the Agreement. A similar provision is contained in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
4. Management is satisfied that the University has adhered to its contractual obligations in respect of the five claimants. The existing structures do not provide for retirement gratuities. This claim represents a significant cost increasing claim and is precluded under the Terms of the Social Partnership Agreement 2003-2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Court is of the view that staff employed by the University in the Regional Medical Library service are in a very different set up to other employees of the University in that the service is a stand alone service, is wholly funded by the Mid Western Health Board and is not located in the University but in the Regional Hospital, Limerick. Similar long serving employees of the Health Board who are not covered by a pension scheme are entitled to a pension gratuity.
The University indicated to the Court that implementation of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 is currently under consideration for all its part-time employees, the effects of which could have major implications in terms of this claim. The claim has been before the University for a number of years. The Court is now being asked to adjudicate on it and is conscious that in making this recommendation it is doing so in the absence of a definitive decision on implementation of the Act.
Therefore, the Court recommends that in the special circumstances of this case, the claimants should be entitled to an exgratia payment on termination of employment similar to the gratuity which applies to similar employees in the Health Boards; or pension benefits which derive from implementation of the 2001 Act, whichever is the greater.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th June, 2003______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.