EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Joseph Purcell
- claimant UD113/2013
Against
Allied Irish Banks PLC
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O'Leary B L
Members: Mr. B. Kealy
Ms. E. Brezina
heard this claim at Dublin on 20th February 2014 and 26th May 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr Vernon Hegarty, SIPTU, 8th Floor, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) : Ms Lynne Martin, Legal Department, AIB PLC,
PO Box 452, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4
Summary of Evidence
The respondent company, a bank, employed the claimant as a kitchen porter at one of the headquarters. Initially the claimant was employed under a temporary contract of employment from April 2000 until he became a permanent employee in October 2000. The claimant then continued to be employed until he was retired on his sixtieth birthday on the 16 June 2012.
It was the respondent’s position that the claimant retired at age sixty, in accordance with his contract of employment. This retirement age was determined by the pension scheme to which the claimant subscribed. There had been some changes to the pension schemes available to employees before the claimant became a member of one on his appointment to a permanent position. The claimant was not entitled to be a member of the pension scheme before this.
The retirement age for employees prior to July 2000 was sixty five but this changed to sixty thereafter and therefore the retirement age for staff on the particular pension scheme that the claimant was a member of was sixty. Sometime after the claimant became a member of the scheme the bank decided to allow employees to opt back into the scheme that operated up to July 2000, which had a retirement age of sixty five. This offer was open to the claimant. However he declined this offer and therefore remained subject to a retirement age of sixty.
At the end of the hearing on the 20 February 2014 the Tribunal requested that both parties provide any documentary evidence they had in support of when the claimant joined the bank’s pension scheme. This information was to be forwarded to the Tribunal before the resumed hearing date of 26 May 2014. Documentation in relation to this issue was forwarded by the bank to the Tribunal on 13 March 2014.
Determination
Having heard evidence from the head of pensions at the respondent company the Tribunal considered the issue in this case. It became evident that the issue in the case was whether or not the claimant was a member of the respondent’s pension scheme prior to July 2000. In order to deal with this matter the Tribunal requested the parties to submit whatever written incontrovertible evidence they possessed to decide the issue.
At the resumed hearing and following a perusal of the documentation supplied by both parties the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of any pension contribution being made by the claimant prior to October 2000. It was obvious to the Tribunal that the managers of the pension scheme had made a mistake in inserting the entry date of the claimant which was reversed subsequently by the issuing of a new notice indicating the correct date.
It follows therefore that the claimant’s entry in to the pension scheme did not occur until October 2000. In the circumstances then his retirement age was sixty and therefore the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)