FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS/ NOMINATED HEALTH AGENCIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS/ NOMINATED HEALTH AGENCIES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of rostered overtime to pensionable pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has been pursuing a claim for some time to have an arrangement for the inclusion of rostered overtime (subject to certain criteria) in pension calculations for approximately 2,750 Support Staff Workers, a scenario which already exists in the case of comparable staff in what was formerly known as Health Board Hospitals.
The 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 26th January, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In December 1991, circular letter S12/91 outlined the criteria by which the inclusion of overtime payments may be reckonable for superannuation purposes. It was issued to all Employers where the local government superannuation code applied, this included the then Health Boards, St James and Beaumont Hospitals.
2. Working rostered overtime must be a requirement of their role under this claim. As many must work additional hours to supplement their low basic wage it becomes part of their normal wages.
3. Not to allow these earnings to be included in their pension calculations would widen the gap even further between pre and post retirement income.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimants are members of a separate pension scheme and while it is similar to the Local Authority Scheme it did not mirror it in every respect. An opportunity to settle this claim in the past was lost but given the additional costs involved it was not feasible under the current economic circumstances.
2. The majority of staff in the HSE are on a shift arrangement and therefore don't work rostered overtime so the claim has limited applicability or relevance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the underlying rationale of Recommendation LCR15043, of 18th December, 1996, is still valid and applicable to the present claim. Accordingly the Court does not recommend its concession.
It is noted that the Employers have indicated a desire to bring about change in the present rostering arrangements for those associated with this claim. Should discussions on this objective take place between the parties the current claim should be reconsidered in that context.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th May, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.