FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONDELEZ (KRAFT) RATHMORE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pension issue.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking pension funding on behalf of nine Workers who were made compulsorily redundant from the Rathmore crumb plant in December 1989 and were subsequently re-employed at various dates between between 1990 and 1994. The Company will not entertain the claim based on its actuarial advice.
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 23rd September, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st October, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have an irrefutable claim that the Company should be liable to fund the Pension Scheme for the period of service prior to July 1984 when the Pension Scheme was non-contributory.
2. The nine Claimants were employed by the Company in 1984 and are therefore fully entitled to benefit as if they were never laid off.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The actuarial cost of the Union's claim is calculated at €400,000 and would put an additional strain on the pension fund. Following a review by the Company it is determined that its obligations are fully discharged in accordance with pensions legislation.
2. As part of the negotiated settlement at the time of the redundancies in 1989, eight of the Claimants accepted a refund of their contributions under the Cadbury Ireland Pension Scheme. It is not reasonable now to expect to be paid a pension in addition to a pension refund.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court finds that the workers concerned terminated their employment with the Company in 1989 including their membership of and entitlements under the Pension Scheme. They were re-employed at various dates between July 1990 and September 1994. However, they did not raise the matter at issue with the Company until 2008 some 14 to 18 years later. The Court takes the view that the Claimants acquiesced in the new pension arrangements and thereby accepted them. Accordingly, the Court can identify no basis for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30/10/2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.