FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Reckonable service for payment of Retirement Gratuity to Retained Firefighters and (2) Retirement age for one worker
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Mayo County Council (represented by LGMSB) and SIPTU in relation to two issues:(1) Reckonable service for payment of retirement gratuity to Retained Firefighters and (2) Retirement age for one Worker.
The Union is seeking the application of a local arrangement whereby service to age 60 is reckonable for payment of retirement gratuity. The Union further contends, in relation to the retirement of the Worker that management failed to inform the Worker of developments on the issue and he incurred a loss of earnings as a result.
Management contend that Circular EL5/89, issued by theDepartment of the Environment Heritage and Local Governmentprovided for an extension of the retirement age from 55 to 58 depending on a medical examination. Management's position in relation to the retirement of the Worker was that he would have been aware of developments and could have applied to remain in employment.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 9th July, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th March, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers in question had local arrangements to remain in employment to age 60. It is unacceptable that the additional service be discounted for gratuity payment purposes.
2 The individual Worker involved in this claim was not informed of the changes in relation to the extension of reckonable service from age 55 to 58. If he had he would have applied to remain in employment as a Retained Firefighter beyond age 55.
3 It was management's responsibility to ensure that the Worker was informed of the revised formula. As a result of not being informed, the Worker lost out on retainer and gratuity payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The national position for the retirement age of firefighters was 55. This was subsequently increased to 58 depending on a medical examination. Service beyond age 58 is not reckonable for pension gratuity payments. The Union could have pursued this issue at national level at the time.
2 Management have correctly applied the provisions of theDepartment of the Environment Heritage and Local Government Circular EL 5/89.
3 The Retained Firefighter would have been aware of developments on the issue of the extension of service and could have applied to remain in employment. Management did all it could to ensure that the Worker was informed of changes as they occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
There were two issues before the Court, (a) reckonable service for the payment of a pension gratuity to Retained Firefighters, and (b) compulsory retirement at age 55 of one Worker. The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and recommends as follows:
(a) reckonable service for the payment of a pension gratuity to Retained Firefighters
As a result of a national arrangement on the level of pension gratuity for Retained Firefighters, which was agreed following lengthy negotiations between the parties, a Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government Circular EL 5/89 was issued in November 2003. This Circular provided for an extension of the pension gratuity to take account of the extended retirement age (from age 55 to 58 years) agreed at national level in April 2003. The Claimants involved in this claim were employed pre-1981 and consequently had the benefit of a local arrangement, which provided for retirement from the County Council at age 60 years and they sought an extension of the pension gratuity for the extra two years.
The Court is of the view that the County Council correctly applied the pension gratuity in accordance with the provisions laid down in Circular EL 5/89 and can see no grounds to extend that benefit in the case of the Claimants involved in this claim.
(b) compulsory retirement at age 55 of one worker
This claim concerns one Worker who retired at age 55 on 22nd August 2002 in accordance with the retirement scheme in operation for Retained Firefighters, at the time. Prior to his retirement date, a claim for an extension of the retirement age was under review. An agreement was reached between LGMSB representing the Local Authorities, and SIPTU & ATGWU, signed in November 2002, which led to the establishment of an Expert Group to examine the issue of the appropriate retirement age for Retained Firefighters. However, in the meantime, the November 2002 agreement placed a moratorium on retirement until June 2003, for those existing Retained Firefighters who had reached retirement age. Consequently, the Claimant involved in this case, sought an extension of his employment up to the June 2003 date.
Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court is of the view that due to the exceptional circumstances of his position at the time that this claim should be conceded. Therefore, the Court recommends that his loss of earning for the period from 23rd August 2002 up to 30th June 2003 should be paid to the Claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th April 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.