FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CATHAL DUFFY LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pension Lump Sum
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf the Worker regarding his pension payments. The Worker was employed with the Company for over 45 years. It is the Union's case that the Worker had entered an agreement with the owner of the Company, Mr Cathal Duffy now deceased, to continue working past the retirement age of 65 and that the owner would continue to pay contributions to his pension. In early 2010 the worker was advised by the Company that an overpayment had occurred and that the Company were seeking a refund of contributions made after the Worker's 65th Birthday. The Company's position is that it did not choose to continue making contributions on behalf of the worker and that there is no record of any agreement between the Worker and Mr Cathal Duffy..
On the 19th November, 2010 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th May, 2011.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker entered an agreement with the Company to continue working past the age of 65 and for pension contributions to be made on his behalf. Mr Duffy passed away and his son took a different view of this agreement. The worker advised the Company of the arrangement made but it refused to recognise this.
2 The Company continued to make direct debits into the pension scheme despite the Worker having reached retirement age. This was recognition of the Worker's desire to remain in employment after the age of 65
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The matter has been fully investigated by the Pensions Ombudsman. He has issued a binding determination rejecting the Worker's claim.
2 The Company did not choose to continue making contributions to the pension scheme on behalf of the Worker. The Company had been seeking clarification from the pension provider for some time on this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Claimant referred a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman in he following terms: -
The employer refused to allow payment of pension lump sum claiming that there was an overpayment by then into the scheme which first had to be repaid.The redress sought was
Payment of my pension lump sum in its entirety.
The decision of the Pension Ombudsman is final and binding on all parties.
The Court is satisfied that the claim before it is identical to that which was rejected by the Pension Ombudsman.
In these circumstances the Court cannot recommend concession of the Unions claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd May, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.