FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MABS - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim For Improved Pension Arrangements In Line With Provisions Of Model Scheme For Public Service
BACKGROUND:
2. The Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) was established in 1992 to provide advice and assistance to people with debt problems. MABS provides this service through 53 independently-operated limited companies which are funded by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. MABS staff are currently members of a defined contribution pension scheme, with MABS contributing 7% of basic pay and the employee 5%. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union for the introduction of a defined benefit pension scheme in line with the provisions of the model scheme for the public service.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th April 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th June 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pay grades of MABS staff are directly linked to the grades of local authority administrative staff. It is not acceptable that MABS staff are linked with the public service for some purposes and not for others.
2. Since MABS was established the Government has claimed public credit for the work of its staff in assisting people with debt problems. In the context of the provision of such an important state-funded service the pensions of MABS staff should be brought into line with that of comparator local authority administrative staff.
3.MABS staff find it intolerable that its claim for a defined benefit pension scheme in line with the provisions of the model scheme for the public service is being refused by a government department staffed by civil servants who themselves enjoy such a pension scheme.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As MABS staff are not public sector employees they should, therefore, look for comparators in the private sector in relation to this claim..
2. TheDepartment of Social and Family Affairs, which has no statutory role in determining the pay or pensions of MABS staff, pays grants to the 53 MABS companies based on the delivery of particular services and not in terms of the number of staff employed.
3.The concession of this claim would represent a significant increase in renumeration for MABS staff and it could have substantially wider repercussive effects on the public finances. As an essentially cost increasing claim it is specifically precluded under the terms of "Towards 2016".
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim as made but notes the acceptance that the provisions of the existing scheme are less than adequate. The Court recommends that the discussions on improving the scheme, which ceased in 2006, should be reactivated and brought to finality by the parties on the basis of increased employer and employee contributions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th July, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.