FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE LAOIS COUNTY ENTERPRISE BOARD LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment in excess of normal transfer rules is being required in order to have Pensionable Service transferred from Local Authority
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the proposed repayment of a 12% allowance paid to the worker from 1996 - 2009 when she was seconded by Laois County Council (the Council) to work as CEO of the Laois County Enterprise Board (the Board). During the secondment she remained a member of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. The difference between her salary with the Council and as CEO with the Board was not pensionable and she was paid an allowance of 12% of the difference as compensation for the fact that the her full salary was not reckonable for pension purposes. The worker resigned her substantive post with Council and joined the Board full time in March, 2009, and ceased to receive the 12% allowance. The Board introduced a new pension scheme whereby the worker's full salary will be pensionable. However, if she is to avail of it she will be required to repay the 12% allowance she received while on secondment and believes that this is unfair. The worker has already made a payment on account in relation to the 12% in October, 2006, and is seeking to have this repaid to her. The Board's case is that it is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, which set up County Enterprise Boards under the Industrial Development Act, 1995, which is seeking repayment of the allowance rather than the Board itself.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th October, 2010, in Portlaois. The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant was seconded by Laois County Council to work as CEO of the Laois County Enterprise Board, between 1996 and 2009. During her period of secondment she remained a member of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. However her pensionable pay was fixed by reference to the salary of her substantive post with the Local Authority. The difference between that salary and the salary applicable to the post of CEO was not pensionable. An allowance of 12% of the difference between both salaries was paid to the Claimant by way of compensation for the fact that the full salary was not reckonable for pension purposes.
A pension scheme has now been introduced by the Enterprise Board. Under this scheme the Claimant’s full salary will be pensionable. Moreover, if her prior service with the Local Authority is transferred, including service while on secondment, she will receive the full benefit of the higher salary in her final pension.
In these circumstances the Court believes that it is reasonable for the pension provider to require the repayment of the 12% allowance since the shortfall in pensionable pay, for which it was intended to compensate, has now been eliminated with retrospective effect.Accordingly the Court recommends that the Claimant accepts that the monies in issue are repayable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th October, 2010______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.