FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VARIOUS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION & SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for the provision of pensions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is on behalf of 2,200 Community Employment Scheme Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors for the provision of a pension scheme. The Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors are employed on various Community Employment Schemes throughout the country, which are funded by FÁS. The Community Employment Schemes would be prepared to introduce a pension scheme for Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors but FÁS is not prepared to provide the necessary funding.
The Unions referred this case to the Labour Court on the 1st of May, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Unions agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of July, 2008.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors in Community Employment Schemes - who have a clear pay link with Mangers, Instructors and Administrative Staff in Community Training Workshops - are now seeking the introduction of a defined pension scheme similar to these comparator grades.
2. In December 2007, the Public Service Benchmarking Body did not grant a pay increase to the majority of public servants because of the value it placed on public servants' pensions. This, however, gave rise to aniniquitous situation whereby Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors in Community Employment Schemes received no increase even though they have no pensions.
3.While the Unions accept that FÁS is not the employer of Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors in Community Employment Schemes, FÁS is the funding agency and as such, should fund the introduction of a defined benefit scheme for Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the Employer would like to introduce a pension scheme forSupervisors and Assistant Supervisors it cannot do so unless FÁS provides the necessary increased funding.
2. FÁS has stated that employers, such as the various Community Employment Schemes, are under no statutory obligation to provide a pension scheme.
3.FÁS states that concession of this uncosted claim would have a consequential knock-on effect on public sector organisations that contract out services to voluntary agencies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made to it by the direct parties and by the funding agency (FÁS). Taking account of Government Policy on the desirability of pensions for all workers; the fact that the provision of pensions was regarded by FÁS as a legitimate cost in the case of employees in Community Training Workshops and the argument that these workers were included in the latest Benchmarking proposals and their renumeration was reviewed in the process as though they had the benefit of a pension scheme, the Court therefore recommends that an agreed pension scheme should be introduced for Community Employment Scheme Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors.
The scheme should be adequately funded by FÁS as the recognised funding agency. The parties should engage without delay to bring this about, being mindful that no adverse consequences for workers' employment should arise therefrom.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22 July, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.