FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BISHOPSTOWN CREDIT UNION (REPRESENTED BY COAKLEY MALONEY SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY HOLOHAN SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-060383-IR-08
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Credit Union and is now an Assistant/Deputy General Manager. He joined the Credit Union's pension scheme at that time. The case concerns whether the worker is entitled to a Defined Benefit Scheme (DB Scheme) on retirement as he claims he was told when he joined the Scheme. The Credit Union's case is that the Scheme has always been a Defined Contribution Scheme (DC Scheme) with a"Target Benefit". The Credit Union cited a report from October, 2004, which made it clear that the Scheme was a DC Scheme.
The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner. He was one of a number of claimants who was referred to in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation which was as follows:
"Accordingly, I now recommend that Bishopstown Credit Union should pay, on an "ex-gratia" and "without precedent" basis, once-off lump sums as set out below to eight of the claimants in recognition of the Company's failure of communications as described above:
€5,000 to the worker - this sum is greater than those below for a number of reasons, including the worker's much longer service and the fact that greater changes in his pension arrangements have occurred over the period of his employment than in the case of any other claimant:
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May, 2010, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Credit Union decided to change the worker from a DB Scheme to a DC Scheme with target without proper consultation or explanation to him and, crucially, without his consent to a variation in his terms and conditions of employment.
2. At no stage until 2004-2005 was the worker informed that the Credit Union operated an integrated scheme where the old age pension would be taken into account.
CREDIT UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was originally a member of a pension scheme which was of a defined benefit nature. However, following advise from its financial advisors the Credit Union was informed that such a scheme would be outlawed by the Pensions Act, 1990, and a new revised scheme - the current one in dispute - was established.
2. The scheme is based on the fund built up at the time of retirement and the current scheme has been fully funded up to 2007. The Credit Union is committed to ensuring that it remains so as afar as is practicable.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the employer is committed to providing continuing funding to its pension scheme at a level sufficient to meet the target benefit. The Court is satisfied that the assurance is given in good faith and should be accepted as such. In these circumstances the employer could not reasonable be expected to go further in providing assurances to the Claimant.
The Court is also satisfied that the integration of the scheme with social welfare is in line with general practice and should be accepted.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the solution to the Claimant’s grievance recommended by the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be implemented.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th May, 2010______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.