FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-000117971.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal ofAdjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-000117971. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim that he retired from his previous employment prior to the application of consolidated pay rates which would have enhanced his pension entitlements. The Worker is seeking the application of the consolidated pay rates to his pension payment or alternatively, compensation for the loss encountered as a result of the Employer's alleged delay in implementing the pay rates as agreed in Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR21438. The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim, arguing that it does not have discretion in the application of Statutory pension entitlements and accordingly the consolidated pay rates cannot be applied retrospectively to the Claimant after his retirement.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 24th April, 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued her Recommendation as follows:
"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 Worker".
On the 31st May, 2018 the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September, 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the pension scheme at issue is, by common case, a statutory scheme. It is clear therefore that it is not open to the Court to recommend alterations to that scheme. Neither is there any contention that the terms of the statutory scheme were incorrectly applied to the Claimant at the point of his retirement.
It is clear to the Court that the timing of implementation of the arrangements arising from LCR21438 was delayed beyond the date expected at the time of issue of the Recommendation. The Court cannot and does not ascribe responsibility for that delay to either the company or the Trade Unions but does note that continuing engagements took place between the parties in the period between the issuance of the Recommendation and the implementation of its terms.
The Claimant before the Court had no alternative, having already extended his retirement to the limit allowed to him, to extend his date of retirement to accommodate the fact of delay in implementation of the new arrangements in the Company and implementation of the new consolidated rate of pay.
The Court recommends that the Company should have regard to the exceptional chain of events which affected the Claimant through no fault of either party. The Company should acknowledge in particular that the Claimant had no opportunity to extend the date of his retirement in order to accommodate the delay in implementing what was a most significant re-structuring of working arrangements for staff of the company. In all of the circumstances, and particularly because the Claimant had no option but to retire when he did, the Court recommends that the Company should, as a gesture of goodwill, make a payment to the Claimant of €2,000 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
26th October 2018______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.