FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY DUBLIN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pension related shift allowance and overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker, the ‘Claimant’, is a caretaker in the Respondent employment. He is in receipt of regular, rostered overtime, which is pensionable. In accordance with instructions from the parent Department, deductions of pension contributions were not made from these payments and the Claimant was advised that these would be deducted from his pension lump sum. He raised an objection to this. The Respondent confirmed that this was in accordance with their instructions from the parent Department. In addition, the Claimant is in receipt of an allowance for travel time that is non- pensionable. This covers shift working, which would normally be pensionable. He raised this matter also with his employer who advised that to regard the allowance as pensionable would be in contravention of the Education Superannuation Scheme.
The Claimant referred the matter to the WRC. The Respondent was advised by the parent Department, as these were matters for collective agreements, that they should not attend. The Claimant referred the matters to the Court under s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 March 2019.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was only recently made aware that he would be subject to a substantial deduction from his lump sum. His agreement had not been sought. He could have paid this money from his salary since he was taken on in 1997, if he had been given the choice.
2. Since 2008, the Claimant has been buying service. Between this, normal pension contributions, pension levy and a recent monthly deduction from overtime payments, a substantial amount of salary was being used for pension contributions and this imposition was additional to those payments.
3. The travel time allowance is really a shift payment. If it was described as such, it would be pensionable.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The travel time agreement covers shift payments and was implemented instead of a shift premium by collective agreement. Discussions subsequently designed to reach agreement on a shift premium did not reach conclusion though such discussion is likely to be re-opened in the future.
2. The specific instructions to the Respondent in a Departmental circular were not to deduct pension contributions from pay in respect of overtime payments but to do so retrospectively from the pension lump sum, in order to avoid difficulties in reckoning whether such payments were pensionable, something which is clearer at the end of pensionable service. However, since January 2019, by agreement with the relevant union, contributions were now being deducted from these payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The terms which have given rise to the Claimant’s case are terms that are negotiated through collective bargaining. Any issues that arise from the implementation of collective agreements that are within the law should, in the view of the Court, be dealt with collectively.
The Court does, however, note with concern the absence of information being provided to the Claimant in a timely fashion. The fact that this did not occur gave rise to the claim regarding deductions from the Claimant’s lump sum.
The Court is unable to accept the Claimant’s case as to do so could open up other issues for the employer and for a wider group of workers.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
LS______________________
27 March 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.