LCR20571

The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Claimant was employed as a 'Permanent Relief Person' in the role of Able Bodied Seaman on Arthur Guinness & Sons' ships from 1974 until 1988. During these years it is calculated by reference to the 'Seaman's Record Book & Certificates of Discharge' that the reckonable service for pension purposes is 10.5 years.

2. The Claimant is seeking equal treatment in line with some of his colleagues in a similar situation as himself who had their prior service recogniseed for pension purposes.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The periods of non-continuous casual service in which the Claimant was engaged on ship duty are not reckonable for pension purposes. The Claimant was made aware of the situation in 1993 and circumstances have never altered since then.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of one Worker for recognition of service for pension purposes. This issue has been the subject of protracted discussions for a long time.

The Worker was employed by the Company as a casual relief person from 1974 until 1998, when he was appointed to a permanent position at which point he joined the Company’s pension scheme.

The Union sought recognition of his service from 1974 for pension purposes. It submitted that the Claimant was the only Worker with similar casual experience who had not had the benefit of recognition of such service after being made permanent. The Union told the Court that the Claimant was given confirmation in 2003 that his casual service would be recognised for pension purposes. This was given in the context of restructuring proposals at the time. The Union stated that this confirmation was later rescinded when the restructuring proposals were accepted.

The Company stated that when it established its contributory pension scheme in 1987, service as a casual worker was not treated as reckonable for pension purposes. This situation was confirmed in respect of the Claimant in 1993. It submitted evidence of the circumstances where some employees received pension benefit in respect of their prior casual service. The Company stated that this was granted solely in the context of its voluntary severance packages, where added years were granted as part of the deal. This was no longer on offer and accordingly the Claimant’s prior casual service was non reckonable for pension purposes. The Company stated that the information given to the Claimant in 2003 was an error which when discovered, was very quickly rectified.

Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the only circumstances where prior casual service has been taken into account for pension purposes has been in the context of the Company’s restructuring/voluntary redundancy packages. The Claimant has not availed of such options and accordingly is not entitled to benefit unlike his colleagues who left the Company under the various exit packages available at the time.

Therefore, the Court does not concede the Claimant’s claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
30th July, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.