LCR22955

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00042633 (CA-00053154 (IR-SC-00000739))

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 14 November 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 10 November 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“R- SC - 00000739

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

The Recommendation is as follows

1. As a pragmatic closure to this case the Employer take steps (Actuarial Valuation /Pension Calculation issues etc) to reinstate for Superannuation purposes the missing years - 2012 to 2017. If this is legally not possible an appropriate alternative compensation be arranged.

2. This can be on a strictly “Red Circle” basis limited to the Worker here only.

3. The Worker to also make a modest Voluntary Contribution, in line with ordinary “buy back” arrangements, to the costs of reinstating/allowing for the non-reckonable Years.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 April 2024.

DECISION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The trade dispute before the Court relates to a period between 2012 and 2017 when the worker was under suspension within the meaning of the relevant Garda regulations / codes /statutes. During that period, she was not in receipt of pay, but was in receipt of a “Suspension Allowance” which was, according to the employer, not pay but was, in money terms, equivalent to 75% of basic pay.

The worker contends that she paid pension contributions throughout her period of suspension but has not been credited with that service in her pension since her retirement in 2021. The employer contends that she paid no pension contributions in the period but did pay a statutorily required ‘Pension Related Deduction’ (PRD) throughout the period.

It is unclear to the Court how the worker could have been liable for PRD during the period of suspension between 2012 and 2017. The lack of clarity emerges from the submission of the employer that she was not in receipt of pay in those years set against an assertion in writing by the NSSO, which administers the employer’s payroll, that the PRD was statutorily required to be made from “the remuneration (pay) of pensionable public servants”.

The Court notes that the employer has asserted that the worker remains in a position to utilise the Internal Dispute Procedure for Pension Appeals set out in Circular 16/2020 and, if not satisfied with the outcome of such an appeal, is entitled to make a further appeal to the Office of the Financial and Pension Ombudsman.

In all of the circumstances the Court decides as follows:

• The employer should, as a matter of urgency, establish the meaning of the NSSO e-mail of 9th June 2023 in the context of the worker’s period in receipt of a Suspension Allowance and clarify comprehensively whether the worker was liable for PRD between 2012 and 2017. The outcome of this exercise should be fully communicated to the worker.
• The worker should utilise the available internal appeal procedure and, if necessary, her entitlement to appeal to the Office of the Financial and Pension Ombudsman.

The recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
GOG	______________________
30 April 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Garrett O'Grady, Court Secretary.