FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UCD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Application for allowances with retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by UCD as a general operative from 1968 until his retirement in July 2007. Following his retirement, the Claimant recommenced his employment with UCD on a Temporary Part-Time Contract. Prior to his retirement in July 2007, the Claimant was in receipt of three allowances, which were incorporated into his pension. The Claimant alleges, however, that he is not now in receipt of the correct allowances.
On the 12th November 2007, the Union, on behalf of the Claimant, referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th March 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In agreeing to work part-time for UCD following his retirement, the Claimant expected that he would be paid the same allowances for carrying out the same duties.
2. The concession of this claim would not mean that the Claimant's current earnings plus pension would be higher than his pre-retirment earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Claimant is in receipt of his full allowance entitlement. Confusion may have arisen due to the fact that the Claimant's allowances are equally divided between his salary and his pension.
2.The concession of this claim would mean that the Claimant would be paid 150% of the allowance, inclusive of his pension.
3.The concession of this claim would mean that the Claimant's earnings would be higher than his final salary at retirement. This would be in breach of the Abatement of Pension rule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Claimant's claim is not well founded. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th April, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.