FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : HSE, ST OTTERAN'S HOSPITAL DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Fast Accrual Pension Scheme
2. The Union argues that there are no grades specified in the Legislation and therefore the grade is a generalised term and not exclusive. 3. There is clear precedent of other psychologist grades in St. Otteran's Hospital having fast accrual applied to them and also applied to psychologists in other parts of the Country.
2. They are excluded as the nature of their work does not involve being directly or personally responsible for the care or charge of relevant psychiatric patients. 3. Employees who are subject to the fast accrual pension scheme provisions are registered as such. RECOMMENDATION: It appears to the Court that, on the one hand, the parties are asking the Court to interpret the provisions of the Mental Treatment Act, 1945 which sets out the qualification arrangements for receipt of a fast accrual pension and to apply the Court’s interpretation to the circumstances of each of the four claimants. The Court holds no jurisdiction under that Act and in any event a Recommendation of the Court given under the Industrial Relations Acts carries no binding effect. The Court notes that it is a condition precedent for receipt of a fast accrual pension under the 1945 Act that a person be entered on a statutory register under that Act. The employer asserts that none of the Claimants are on such a register while the Trade Union asserts that all of the Claimants are on the relevant register if such a register exists or is being maintained. Finally, the Court notes that the Act gives the Minister the statutory function of deciding any dispute as to whether a person who is not on the register should be on such a register. The Court does not believe that a dispute as regards interpretation of the 1945 legislation can properly be considered an industrial relations trade dispute. Matters of statutory interpretation do not, in the Court’s view, fall to be dealt with by non-binding Recommendations of the Court given under the Industrial Relations Acts. For that reason, the Court has decided to issue no Recommendation addressing matters associated with interpretation of the 1945 Act or the statutory framework surrounding the entry of a person onto the statutory register provided for by that Act. The trade dispute before the Court does appear to include a claim by the Trade Union that, aside from any dispute as regards the meaning of the 1945 Act, the four claimants should, based on their circumstances and career history, be allowed to benefit from a fast accrual pension. The Court sought to establish some understanding of the number of other staff in the employment of the HSE who might be in similar grade and circumstance as the four Claimants but the parties were unable to provide clarity on that matter. The Court is, consequently, unable to form a view as to the potential impact across the health service of any Recommendation it might make on this claim. For that reason, the Court recommends that any matter relating to a claim for fast accrual pension outside of the provisions of the 1945 Act should be addressed by the parties on a national basis such that a full understanding of the consequences of any potential agreement on the matter can be understood by the parties. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
