LCR23027

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No's: ADJ-00042865 (CA-00053484 IR-SC-00000808)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 3 April 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 22 February 2024, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation.

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that the employer acknowledges that it failed to give notice of any change in the ICP benefits to the employee between 2008 and 2023. The failure to notify him was unfair to an employee who is in ill health and living on a fixed income. To compensate for that failure, I recommend the employer pays €4,000 to the employee in full and final settlement of this dispute.

I recommend that the employee accepts that, as set out in the 1996 Explanatory Booklet of the Income Continuance Plan, the employer is entitled to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Plan by giving notice to the employee. Further, I recommend that he accepts that he received notice of a change to the Plan on 21 April 2023 and that as of 01 April 2023 his benefits will be covered by the Income Benefit Protection policy which includes an inflationary CPI associated benefit up to a maximum of 3% per annum. I recommend the employee accepts the compensation payment of €4,000 if full and final settlement of this dispute.

This recommendation is made in the context of the specific circumstances of this dispute and is not applicable to any other individual.’’          

A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 August 2024.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (IR-SC-00000808, dated 22 February 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 3 April 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 8 August 2024.

Factual Background

The Worker has been employed by Permanent TSB (as it is now known) (‘the Respondent’) since 12 November 1979. His current grade is that of Assistant Manager. The Worker commenced long-term sick leave in April 2008. Since October 2008, he has been in receipt of income continuance from the Respondent’s Income Continuance Plan (‘the ICP’) at the rate of 66.67% of his base salary.

The Dispute

The dispute concerns payment of annual cost-of living increases under the ICP linked to the Consumer Price Index. The Worker claims he is entitled to an annual increase of up to 5% per annum, capped at the annual CPI increase. He relies on a 1996 Explanatory Booklet that details the terms of the Respondent’s Pension Plan and ICP in place at that time. The Worker submits he has received no annual increase since he began to avail himself of the ICP in 2008. He quantifies the amount by which he has been underpaid since 2008 at €9,100.78.

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Worker has no entitlement to an annual cost-of-living increase. It is also submitted that the Respondent was severely impacted by the financial crisis in 2008 and this necessitated the introduction of a number of cost-saving measures from 2008 onwards. The Respondent’s ICP became self-assured that year, for example. The Court was also given details of further extensive cost-containment measures that were implemented in 2013, including the closure of its Defined Benefit Pension Schemes, the cessation of salary increments and income protection inflationary increases. The latter matter was partially redressed from 1 April 2023, the Court was told, when the Respondent took the opportunity to purchase an income continuance policy that includes a CPI benefit which has since then been universally applied to all colleagues in the Respondent (including the Worker) availing themselves of income continuance benefit.

Discussion and Decision

Having considered carefully the detailed submissions made by both Parties, the Court finds that the Worker has not established that he had a contractual entitlement to a 5% annual increase to his benefits under the Respondent’s ICP. The Court, therefore, finds that his claim that he has been underpaid by €9,100.78 between 2008 and 2022 is not well-founded.

It is, however, abundantly clear to the Court that the Worker was not adequately communicated with by the Respondent in respect of the various amendments that were implemented to the ICP from 2008 onwards. Had there been adequate ongoing communication from the Respondent, it is likely that the Worker would not have initiated the within proceedings at all.

The Court, therefore, recommends payment of €2,000.00 to the Worker in compensation for the Respondent’s failure to keep him informed of developments in relation to the scheme of which of he has been a beneficiary since 2008.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
12 August 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.