ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000533

Disputes for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/11/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background 

The Complainants are all employed as part-time school bus drivers with the Respondent Company. They referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 6^th November 2015 in relation to the conditions for their entry to the Company Pension Scheme.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainants were not allowed to join the named Pension Scheme for Regular Wages Staff and the issue was first raised with the Company in 2002. The Scheme is covered by statute and has been amended several times since 1945 when the Scheme was originally established. Discussions between the Respondent and SIPTU did not result in a resolution and the issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission in 2007 and the LRC recommended that they be admitted to the Scheme. SIPTU received proposals to allow eligible drivers into the Scheme and again the issue was referred to the Labour Court in 2010, who recommended the Drivers be allowed into the Scheme. The Respondent wrote to the drivers in 2014 advising them that in order to join the scheme they would have to pay arrears effective from 22^nd March 2010. The drivers received revised figures in 2015.

SIPTU is seeking a Recommendation that the Respondent should pay the arrears of the drivers due to the inordinate delay by the Respondent Company in implementing the LRC and then the Labour Court Recommendations.

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

In September 1993 SIPTU submitted a claim for a pension scheme for Part-Time School Bus Drivers and the Parties agreed to set up a working party and terms of reference were agreed which included to look at the scheme already in place for Regular Wages Staff and also other pension schemes in the market. The working party issued its report in September 1997. The Respondent were willing to admit the drivers to the scheme but a rule of the scheme has an upper age limit of 51 years for entry to the scheme and this would have excluded some 80%. This remains the situation with 78 being below 51 years and 310 above. The option then was to look at an external provided Scheme. Following another joint working party the trade unions opted for a named pension scheme in the private sector. The Company agreed to funding of 2.5%. Both Unions who were party to the discussions agreed to the proposal with SIPTU agreeing by letter dated 23^rd February 2001 however in June 2002 both Unions involved withdrew from the proposed scheme.

Following the enactment of the Pensions Amendment Act, 2002 the Respondent agreed a provider giving access to a standard PRSA.

SIPTU referred the issue to the Labour Relations Commission under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 in 2003 and the Rights Commissioner found that the drivers did not meet the requirements of a specified section of the Act of 1945.

Following Conciliation talks in the Labour Relations Commission in 2006 and 2007 proposals by the WRC were accepted in January 2008 to include the driver’s entry to the Company Pension Scheme. There were discussions between the parties during 2008/2009 with SIPTU referring the issue to the Labour Court in September 2009. A Labour Court Hearing took place in March 2010 and a Recommendation was issued. SIPTU accepted the Recommendation in June 2011. In September 2012 the drivers were invited to join the Scheme and the Respondent wrote to all the drivers and of the 500 only 30 responded expressing an interest in joining the Scheme. However a large number opted to join the PRSA which the Respondent does make a contribution to.

The employees interested in joining have been provided with all the necessary information. In August 2015 the Pensions Authority contacted the Respondent on behalf of three drivers concerning admission to the Scheme. The Pensions Authority advised these three employees that the matter was an industrial relations issue and not relevant to the Authority.

In Summary the Respondent stated the Scheme is a statutory scheme – the minimum age for admission is 20 years and the maximum age is 51 years – the Respondent has complied with the Labour Court Recommendation and the LRC proposals of October 2014 – they have provided a PRSA Scheme – the Respondent will provide all information in relation to the Scheme

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 was 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.

Rosaleen Glackin

Adjudication Officer

Date: 03 March 2017