FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FLOGAS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pension Scheme terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the Pension terms of Drivers employed by the Company. The Union is seeking that all earnings be reckonable for pension purposes whereas presently it is only basic pay plus 10% of additional earnings that are pensionable. Management contends that it cannot sustain the cost of the Union's claim given its current financial situation.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 29th December 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd March 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union is seeking that all earnings are reckonable for pension purposes in the Defined Contribution (DC) Pension Scheme. The current level of basic pay plus 10% of non-basic earnings that are reckonable is insufficient as all other staff have all earnings included for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Drivers have an agreed additional amount of 10% of non-basic pay earnings reckonable for pension purposes in the new DC Pension Scheme. This rate is agreed between the parties as part of an agreement previously concluded in relation to increases in basic pay. The basic pay increases were reckonable for pension purposes in the Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Scheme which existed until the DC Scheme was set up in May 2013. These increases continue to accrue in the DB Scheme for previous service.
2 As Management is funding the deficit in the DB Scheme and has an agreed rate of 10% of additional earnings reckonable in the DC Scheme, it cannot sustain the cost of the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
24th March 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.