FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation no. ADJ-00008356.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Worker that his regular rostered overtime would be included for the purposes of calculation of superannuation benefits.
The Union said that the Worker meets the normal criteria relied upon in the public service for the inclusion of overtime for pension purposes.
- The Employer said that there is no provision, explicit or implicit, within the Teagasc Superannuation Scheme that provides for overtime in certain circumstances to be deemed as pensionable pay.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 8 January 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “Accordingly, as the overtime in this case was worked on a weekly basis for a period of some 12 years it has to be seen as effectively a part of salary and proper for reckoning as a pensionable payment.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 15 February 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23 March 2018.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes the detail supplied as regards the Superannuation Scheme in operation in Teagasc. The Court notes that this scheme has application to 1,200 (approx.) current employees as well as retired members. The scheme terms contain a provision for the resolution of disputes which was not utilised by the Claimant to address his concerns.
The matter before the Court is a claim for the inclusion of regular and rostered overtime for calculation of pension purposes. The parties are in dispute as regards whether the overtime performed by the Claimant was compulsory or optional.
In the view of the Court the claim is, effectively, for a re-design / re-structuring of the terms of the Teagasc Superannuation Scheme as it applies to the working of overtime. Any concession of such a claim would have implications for the pension arrangements of all members of the scheme. In the view of the Court it would be inappropriate to deal with such a claim on the basis of a claim from a single individual. In the circumstances the Court cannot recommend concession of the Trade Union’s claim.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside and the appeal succeeds.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
04 April, 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.