FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retirement Age.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim that the Worker is entitled to continue working to age 68. The Worker is anxious to work to age 68 in order to achieve 50 years' service but the Employer declined this request.
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 9th December, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February, 2009, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has treated the Worker in a very shabby manner.
2. The Employer is ignoring the long-established policy of allowing Workers continue working to age 68.
3.No alternative agreement on this issue was entered into by the Union with the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retirement age has reduced over the years from age 70 to age 66, in line with changes to the minimum age at which the State Contributory Old Age Pension becomes payable.
2. The Employer cannot allow the Worker continue working beyond age 66 because it is required to reduce payroll costs by 3% by the end of 2009 .
3.Concession of this claim would have potential implications for the Employer and result in knock-on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court, while sympathising with the Claimant's objective and recognising his long and meritorious service, has come to the conclusion that the retirement age of an individual is dictated by the terms of the pension scheme applicable and is therefore, in the final analysis, a matter for Teagasc. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd March, 2009______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.