FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00000533.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is in relation to the the conditions for entry to the Company Pension Scheme.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 3 March 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:
Findings
On the basis of the evidence and written submissions from both Parties I find as follows-
The Respondent has implemented both the Labour Court Recommendation of 2010 and the Recommendation of the Labour Relations Commission of October 2014.
The scheme is a statutory scheme, where conditions apply to entry to the scheme.
Interested Drivers have been provided with all necessary information from the Respondent to make an informed decision as to whether they wish to join the Scheme or not.
SIPTU, on behalf of the 13 Complainants, is seeking a Recommendation that the Respondent pay the arrears effective from 2010 on the basis that it is the Respondent who is responsible for the delay. The evidence from both parties does not support this argument that the Respondent delayed implementation of the Recommendations.
I find that there is no basis to recommend that the Respondent should pay the arrears of the Complainants backdated to 2010 to enable them join the Company Pension Scheme.
Furthermore this is a Collective issue involving some 500 Part Time School Bus Drivers who may be interested in joining the Scheme if the Respondent is held liable for the arrears to 2010.
Recommendation
On the basis of the evidence and my Findings above and in accordance with Section 13 of the Act, I do not recommend in favour of the Complainants.
SIPTU on behalf of the Complainants appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 12 April 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 June 2017.
DECISION:
This is an appeal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 by 13 named employees employed as Part-Time School Bus Drivers against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer Adj-00000533 into their claims seeking payment by their employer of arrears of employee pension contributions back to 22ndMarch 2010.
In 2010 the Labour Court recommended that Part-Time School Bus Drivers should have access to the“CIE Pension Scheme for Regular Wages Staff”and that the Scheme should be applied in accordance with its provisions effective from the date of the Recommendation, i.e. 22ndMarch 2010. The Union accepted this Recommendation in June 2011 and the Company invited those interested to join the scheme in September 2012.
On 23rdOctober 2014, the issue of an extension of the deadline for admission to the scheme along with the issue of payment of arrears into the scheme was the subject of conciliations talks at the Labour Relations Commission (now known as the Workplace Relations Commission). A set of proposals made by the LRC was accepted by the parties at the time. Included in the agreed proposals was a proposal that Management would facilitate a mechanism to pay arrears for those staff who wished to join the pension scheme.
In order to facilitate existing employees the Company decided to be flexible on some aspects of the scheme – it permitted those over 50 years to join and to determine their own admission date to the scheme. This has given rise to difficulties for employees seeking details on the cost of joining the scheme and the amount of arrears to be paid. The Company sought to assist employees by providing pension advice. It also provided a PRSA arrangement for those not wishing to join the CIE pension scheme; this includes contribution from the Company to the PRSA scheme. Furthermore, for those who opt not to join either of the above pension schemes, the Company provided existing employees with an option to take a gratuity payment related to years’ of service.
At the hearing before the Court, the Company made it clear that it is willing to provide and pay for independent expert pension advice in order to assist the 13 Claimants make choices and will endeavour to provide an arrears payment mechanism to facilitate the payment of arrears.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court recommends that within a period of two weeks from the date of this Decision, the Company should have in place an independent expert pension advisor to provide assistance and guidance to the Claimants in their pension choices, including details of arrears if applicable. The Court recommends that the advisor must ensure that those Claimants who seek such advice and guidance should receive it on a personal basis within a period of ten weeks from the date of this Recommendation. The Court also recommends that the Company’s commitment given at the WRC to facilitate a mechanism for payment of arrears to help spread such payments over a period of time, should be implemented without delay.
The Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim for the payment of arrears by the Company and on that basis it does not uphold the appeal. The Court varies the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3 July 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.