FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CEMENT LIMITED - AND - IRISH CEMENT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pension - VHI - Share Participation Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. There are approximately 260 workers involved in the claim, located at two production sites in Drogheda and Limerick. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the C.R.H. Group.
The claim is as follows:-
(1) Improvement in the Pension Scheme
(2) Introduction of VHI cover (Plan B) for members and family
(3) Share Participation Scheme increased by €2,500.
The Company has rejected all three parts of the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of June, 2004, in Drogheda, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has refused to negotiate in any meaningful way with the Union.
2. Part of what the Unions are seeking in regard to pension is an increase in the accrual rate from 1/60 to 1/52.5. This would mean that two thirds pension could be achieved after 35 years' service rather than the current 40 years' service.
3. The Pension Fund value at present is very healthy. The surplus left after accrued liabilities were taken into account has resulted in the employer's contribution rate being reduced from 14% to 6% - well below average for defined benefit schemes.
4. The Company's benefits in relation to members being out on ill health grounds are minimal. The Unions have previously supplied a considerable list of companies which provide VHI protection for employees and their families.
5. The Unions' original claim was for a profit share scheme but the Company was opposed to this. Had it been introduced, it would have yielded far more than the present Share Participation Scheme which has a maximum value of approximately €7,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions' claim in regard to the Share Participation Bonus and VHI cover are cost-increasing and are clearly in breach of Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress (S.P.)
2. Clause 4.1 of S.P. enables Unions to make claims for improvement in a pension scheme where benefits are out of line with comparable employments. The Company believes that its benefits are among the best in Irish industry. Benefits have improved progressively through the years (apart from 2000 - 2002). The scheme more than fulfils the requirements under S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions submitted claims for an improvement to the pension scheme, introduction of a Company subsidised VHI scheme and an improvement to the Share Participation Scheme. The Company holds the view that these claims are explicitly precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is satisfied that the terms of the Company's pension scheme are not out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments and, therefore, the claim is precluded under Clause 4.1 of Sustaining Progress.
The Court is also satisfied that the Union's claims for the introduction of a Company subsidised VHI scheme and an improvement to the Share Participation Scheme are cost increasing claims and are accordingly, in breach of Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd June, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.