FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SULZER PUMP SOLUTIONS IRELAND - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-00002134
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for arrears of pension benefit amounting to two years and three months.
- The Employer said the Worker is not entitled to any arrears.
- The Worker said the Employer is in breach of a 1998 World Class Manufacturing (WCM) Agreement which provided the craft section pension being transferred to the staff pension.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 15th September 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- It is conceded that some of the issues that have arisen could cause confusion. Pension schemes and their operation are, by their nature, complicated and it is therefore unfortunate that mis-information was provided by the professional administrators of the Scheme. I note that that particular issue was investigated by the Pension Ombudsman in 2005 who concluded that there was no loss arising and that the employee concerned was paid in accordance with the Scheme’s trust deeds. All members affected were advised accordingly at that time and their benefit statement amended. In addition, it is widely known that many traditional pension schemes have run into difficulties due to investment market performance and the strict funding standards now required by law. In these circumstances extra funding was required in order to deal with these problems rather than provide extra benefits. Unfortunately in many cases these schemes were still forced to close.
In light of the above I have to conclude that the complainant’s pension is being calculated in accordance with the rules of the Pension Scheme and I therefore cannot recommend in favour of the complainant’s claim.
- It is conceded that some of the issues that have arisen could cause confusion. Pension schemes and their operation are, by their nature, complicated and it is therefore unfortunate that mis-information was provided by the professional administrators of the Scheme. I note that that particular issue was investigated by the Pension Ombudsman in 2005 who concluded that there was no loss arising and that the employee concerned was paid in accordance with the Scheme’s trust deeds. All members affected were advised accordingly at that time and their benefit statement amended. In addition, it is widely known that many traditional pension schemes have run into difficulties due to investment market performance and the strict funding standards now required by law. In these circumstances extra funding was required in order to deal with these problems rather than provide extra benefits. Unfortunately in many cases these schemes were still forced to close.
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th October 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th December 2016.
WORKERS’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were two defined pension benefit schemes, one based on basic wages and the other on salary. In all other aspects they were identical.
2. In 1998 a WCM agreement provided the craft section being transferred to staff positions and the Company promised the same general conditions as all other staff, specifically including pension and sick pay.
3. The inclusion of full service as pensionable service in the staff pension scheme became a general condition for staff in 1979 and continued until the scheme closed to new members in 2013. In 2005 the trustee instructed the pension administrators to deny this condition to members who transferred from the shop floor scheme, thereby discriminating against him.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The administrators of the scheme were in error in applying the full service years as their pensionable service. This was only identified in 2005 when one employee affected by the error was retiring.
2. This issue was taken to the Pensions Ombudsman who found it was a clerical error, no actual loss had occurred and that the employee was paid in accordance with the pension scheme’s trust deeds.
3. The WCM agreement states that craft staff joining the staff pension scheme would have a start date from 1981.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Claimant against a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer DECADJ-00002134 issued on 15 September 2016, who found against his claim that the Employer was in breach of a World Class Manufacturing (WCM) Agreement concluded between the Company and the SIPTU in 1998. This provided for craftsmen to receive the same general conditions as apply to all other staff including the same pension scheme. Prior to this, craftsmen were covered by the Company’s Shop Floor scheme which was introduced in 1981.
The Claimant joined the Company on 2ndOctober 1978.
The Claimant asserted that the Employer was in breach of the Agreement on the basis that the Staff Pension Scheme which was introduced in 1979 provided existing staff members who were employed since the Company’s inception in 1973 to have their service from the date they joined the Company included as reckonable pension service. This provision was a once off provision of the Scheme which applied only on its introduction to existing members of staff. The Claimant sought similar retrospection when he (among other craftsmen) became entitled to membership of the Staff Pension Scheme in accordance with the 1998 WCM Agreement.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that it has not been presented with any evidence to supports the Claimant’s contention that the Employer was in breach of the WCM Agreement. The Court notes that when this issue was investigated in a separate case by the Pension Ombudsman, it was confirmed that the rules of the Staff Pension Scheme were applied in accordance with its rules and he held that there was no maladministration of the Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme. Accordingly, the Court finds against the Claimant’s appeal and upholds the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
19th December, 2016.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.