LCR22283

1.Equal Treatment for Pension Purposes.

BACKGROUND:

2.The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of October, 2020. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation:


3.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The job advertisement clearly states that the role involved working on a shift roster. Other staff on the roster, and other staff working shift elsewhere in the employment, are paid a pensionable shift allowance.

2. Verbal assurances were given that the allowance would be pensionable. This is corroborated by a signed statement by others in the same role.


4.COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1.The Worker signed his contract seven years ago. Five years after signing, the Worker decided he was no longer happy with the terms of his contract. He entered into his contract with the full knowledge of the terms and conditions, including the specific provision that his allowance was non-pensionable. He now seeks, without justification, to change these terms and conditions.

2. There is nothing in the contract that gives any expectation that the position in relation to the Allowance would change or be reviewed. The contract states clearly that the allowance is non-pensionable.

3. Other managers are in receipt of non pensionable allowances. Concession of this claim would have repercussive impacts that have the potential to be hugely detrimental to the relevant pension scheme.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court is clear that this claim relates to a group of workers and not just to an individual.

Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim as presented.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
CO'R	______________________
30 October 2020	Deputy Chairman