FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MONDELEZ IRELAND (RATHMORE) (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Retirement Age.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the retirement age.
The Union said that the Company has failed to provide the Workers with the option of working longer in line with the Statutory Instrument 600 of 2017.
The Employer said that the mandatory retirement age of 65 was agreed with SIPTU as part of a Collective Agreement.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3 August 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 January 2019.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of the Workers wish to work beyond the age of 65.
2. The Workers wish to do so with the agreement of the Company.
3. To date, the Company has refused to allow anyone to work beyond 65.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The pension scheme age for retirement is 65 years.
2. There is a Collective Agreement with SIPTU which has a compulsory retirement age of 65.
3. The retirement age was increased from 63 to 65 in a Collective Agreement in 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the three individuals referred to in the submissions of the parties have retired and are no longer affected by the matter in dispute.
The Court takes particular cognisance of the fact that the parties have comprehensive collective agreements in place across two sites which make provision for mandatory retirement at the age of 65. The Court notes that, in practical industrial relations terms, the comprehensive agreements in place in the two sites, while separate, have produced what are in fact a range of common terms and conditions of employment including retirement age.
The Trade Union has submitted that concession of the within claim would not have an effect on the comprehensive agreement in place in Rathmore. The Court however cannot but conclude that any provision for individuals to remain in employment beyond the age of 65 would constitute an amendment to the agreement, given that retirement would no longer be ‘mandatory’ within the plain meaning of the word.
The Court notes that no claim for a change in respect of retirement age has been pursued as part of normal and periodic collective negotiations in respect of the comprehensive agreements on either site. The Court therefore, taking account in particular of the fact that the three identified individuals no longer retain an interest in the matter, recommends that the current collective agreement as regards retirement age should remain in place until such time as the parties reach agreement on a replacement. Any such agreement should be sought in the context of any engagement between the parties which might take place in respect of the current comprehensive agreement in place on the site.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
22 January, 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.