FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pension Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The Roadstone companies operate in the Quarrying sector. This involves the production of stone, sand and aggregates. These products are then sold or processed into blocks, concrete and blacktop.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of its' members for an increase in pensionable pay/de-integration of Social Welfare with the Operatives Pension Scheme. The current Pension Scheme is integrated at three quarters of a single person's old age pension.
The Company pointed out that the Pension Scheme in Roadstone/Wood is superior to any other competitor scheme operating in the Quarrying Industry and is therefore "substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments."
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th April 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Scheme has had some improvements made to it in recent years however, the Unions believe that the value of the benefits have been significantly eroded by improvements to Social Welfare increases in recent years.
2. The Roadstone Pension Scheme is based on basic pay only whereas employees generate most of their income through overtime payments.
3. The Unions maintain that the costs as stated by the Company are much lower than suggested and if integration is conceded it will mean a sharing of the costs. The Unions are only seeking an elimination of Social Welfare integration going forward.
4. The Unions are prepared to enter an agreed process that would allow for the total package of pay and pensions to be discussed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Roadstone/Wood operate a Defined Benefit Scheme for all its employees. Any further improvements to the scheme will put its future at risk.
2. The Company maintain that the Pension Scheme is an excellent scheme and in terms of the generosity of the scheme is "substantially out of line" with all its competition in the Quarrying Industry.
3. The Company contend that the Social Welfare offset at 75% of State benefit is significantly better than most pension schemes where the norm is 150% of State benefit.
4. Additional pension costs would erode the competitiveness of the Company and any concession of a cost increasing claim like this may result in future job losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the improvement of an existing pension scheme. Such claims are cost increasing and are normally precluded under the stabilisation provisions of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016. The Union have, however, argued that the claim is permissible because the pension scheme in issue is out of line with that operated by another Company within the CRH group. On that basis they contend that the claim comes within the exception provided by Clause 3.1 of the Agreement.
The Court does not accept that the pension scheme at issue is out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. Accordingly, the court cannot recommend concession of the claim.
However, the Court recommends that the parties should explore, on a without prejudice basis, the possibilities of addressing this dispute within the parameters of Towards 2016. This would involve the parties accepting that any adjustments would have to be achieved on a cost-neutral basis. This exploration should also take account of the next actuarial evaluation of the scheme due early next year.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th September, 2007______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.