EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Timothy Murphy PW270/2014
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Glaxosmithkline (Ireland) Limited
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms K. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Ms H. Kelleher
heard this appeal at Cork on 15th January 2016
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Noel Murphy, Independent Workers Union, 55 North Main Street, Cork
Respondent: Jim Reaney. Glaxosmithkline.
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by the employee against the decision of the Rights Commissioner Ref: r-144755-pw-14/MMG.
Background:
The appellant stated that he worked for a company for about 10 years up to the mid-seventies. This company was taken over by another company in or around 1972 and subsequently that company was taken over by the respondent.
The company in which the appellant was employed ran a non-contributory pension scheme and the appellant claimed that he was a member of that scheme and should have been entitled to either a pension from his 65th birthday or a once of lump sum payment of approximately €10,000.00. However on making an enquiry of the respondent the appellant was informed that the company charged with paying such a pension/lump sum had no record of his ever having been a member of the pension scheme in question. As such neither the respondent nor the investment company could pay out such a pension/lump sum to the appellant.
The representative of the respondent did not doubt that the appellant worked for the company during the time he said he did but there were no records to confirm this. The investment company responsible for administering this pension scheme had a list of the employees who were members of the scheme but the appellant’s name was not on this list. In the circumstances the respondent could not pay the appellant in respect of his claim for a pension/lump sum payment.
The appellant’s representative held that although remuneration in respect of pensions is expressly excluded from the definition of wages under the Payments of Wages Act, 1991 the payment sought by the appellant was not necessarily a pension payment but could be defined as deferred wages.
The representative of the respondent told the Tribunal that the normal retirement age within the respondent and the date from which pensions are paid is an employee’s 65th birthday. The appellant was 65 on 5th September 2012.
It was the respondent’s position that the Tribunal could not hear this appeal as this was a claim for payment in respect of a pension and even if it was deemed to be a payment of wages that the claim was lodged with the Rights Commissioner outside the time frame permitted under the Act.
Determination:
The definition of “wages” in the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides that payment by way of a pension shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition.
“wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—
Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:
(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,
Having carefully considered the oral and written submissions of the parties the Tribunal is satisfied that the payment sought by the appellant is payment in respect of a pension scheme.
Accordingly the Tribunal upholds the decision of the Rights Commissioner and refuses jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)