FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SAINT LUKE'S HOSPITAL / HSE - AND - MLSA/SIPTU/IMPACT/INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Superannuation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early in 2010 eleven staff based at St. Luke's Hospital were informed that due to an error in payroll section they were misclassified as Class A rather than Class D employees for their PRSI code, resulting in both an overpayment of PRSI contributions and shortfall in their occupational pension contributions. The overpayment was refunded in full to the staff by SCOPE and the shortfall, following an agreement between Management and staff, would become the responsibility of the Board of Management of the then Voluntary Hospital.
St Luke's Hospital has since been subsumed into the HSE who have informed the staff affected that the agreement not to recoup the pension contributions from them cannot be honoured. The group of Unions disagree, stating that the transfer agreement under a statutory instrument confirms that all liabilities of the former Voluntary Hospital Board must be honoured by the HSE.
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 7th January, 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th February 2014.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A verbal and written commitment to make good the superannuation shortfall was given by the Board of Management of St Luke's Hospital to the Claimants.
2. No precedent will be created by the HSE honouring the commitment to address the issues arising from the PRSI code misclassification.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rules of the superannuation scheme clearly state that members must make appropriate contributions either from their salary or from their superannuation benefit in order to participate.
2. The Management of St Luke's Hospital had no authority to alter the terms of the scheme and no authority to issue letters of commitment to the staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted by the HSE that the Board of St Luke’s Hospital gave a commitment to the Claimants that it would not 'recoup' the superannuation contributions which in the normal course would be payable by each of them. The Court accepts that the Board could not have agreed to provide the Claimants with benefits under the scheme in respect of which contributions were not paid.
However, the import of this commitment was that the Board agreed to accept liability for payment of the amounts for which the Claimants had become liable. That commitment was freely given and was expressed in unequivocal terms both verbally and in writing. Having regard to the industrial relations context in which it arose, the agreement should be honoured by the Board's successor.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the HSE should accept liability for the payments in issue in line with the commitment made by the Claimants’ former employer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th March, 2014______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.