FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Voluntary Severance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed as an Engineer with the Authority. The worker claims that he should be granted severance under the 20-30 years Voluntary Severance (V.S.) scheme rather than Voluntary Early Retirement (V.E.R.) under the 30-35 years scheme. The worker commenced employment on 1st August, 1974. As he would not qualify for full pension at age 65 years he opted to purchase seven years notional service to give him forty years pensionable service at age 65 years. The worker had 36 years 109 days pensionable service as 31st October, 2003. On 26th August , 2003 the Authority issued Office Notices inviting applications for Voluntary Early Retirement (V.E.R.) (O.N.10/2003) and Voluntary Severance (V.S.) (O.N. 11/2003) (details supplied to the Court). On 19th September, 2003 the claimant applied for the V.S. scheme. The Authority advised the worker that he did not qualify for the scheme as he had more than 35 years pensionable service. The worker was advised that he qualified for the V.E.R. scheme and could apply if he wished. This was not acceptable to the worker who, in November 2003 lodged a grievance under the Authority's Grievance Procedure on the grounds that he was not being considered for the V.S. scheme. The grievance was processed internally but could not be resolved. The issue was then referred to an independent third part for Adjudication. The Adjudicator found that the Authority had correctly applied the terms of the scheme and that the claimant was not entitled to the V.S. scheme. On the 16th January, 2005 the claimant submitted a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd July, 2005.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant advised Management that he was applying for V.S. He stated that he had purchased 7 years notional service and was over 60 years of age. He was advised it did not matter. His application was submitted and signed by Management recommending that he be granted V.S.
2. The claimant was subsequently told by Management that he was not being recommended for V.S.on the basis that he was needed on station and could not be released. He was subsequently advised that he was not getting the V.S. deal because he had topped up his pension. The claimant requested this information in writing but it was refused.
3. The claimant has made a huge sacrifice by paying 9% of his salary for thirteen years into the pension fund so as to be compliant with the employer's request, while other workers who paid nothing are to be paid handsomely for it. Had the claimant not purchased notional service he would have qualified for V.S. In purchasing notional service he understood it was only to be used to enhance his pension and could not be used for any other purposes like setting the terms for V.S. The claimant should not be treated less favourably than workers who did not purchase notional service and qualified for V.S.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The V.E.R. scheme detailed in O.N.10/2003 is clear in that it applies to staff who had 35 years pensionable service at 31st October, 2003. The V.S. Scheme detailed in O.N.11/2003 is clear in that it applied to staff who did not meet the qualifying criteria for V.E.R. Once a worker qualified for V.E.R. he/she did not qualify for V.S. The claimant had in excess of 35 years pensionable service at 31st October, 2003 and qualified for V.E.R. (36 years 109 days)
2. While the highlighted headings in O.N.11/2003 setting out the service criterion referred to "service" and not to "pensionable service", the application of the two "options" was clearly dependant upon the qualifying criterion in the introduction which stated:
"The Authority is in a position to consider applications for Voluntary Severance from staff who do not meet the qualifying criteria for Voluntary Early Retirement".
It was always the intention that in the context of V.E.R. and V.S. "service" at all times had the meaning of pensionable service. The claimant qualified for V.E.R. and in so qualifying was precluded from consideration for V.S.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by both parties in this complex case, while sympathetic to the obvious confusion experienced by the claimant when considering together the two somewhat conflictingly drafted circulars (10/2003 and 11/2003), is of the view that, at the end of the day, the interpretation of the Authority is the correct one.
Acknowledging, however, that this militated in an unfortunate manner against the claimant personally, the Court would ask the Authority to re-open the closed V.E.R. scheme for the claimant alone (in his unique circumstances) on the basis that he may now wish to take advantage of it.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th July. 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.