LCR22355

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00003304 CA-00004883-001.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Employee, on 17 May 2017, appealed an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation made on 5 April 2017 to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.


A Labour Court Case Management conference took place in a virtual Court room on 7 December 2020 and a Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual Court room on 4 February 2021.

DECISION :

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

The essence of this dispute is the frustration and distress of the Claimant at the fact that her pension when she retired in 2015 was, as she sees it, negatively affected by a promotion which she had taken up prior to her retirement.

The Court notes that the employer does not accept that anything other than the correct arrangements were made in respect of the pension entitlement of the Claimant.

Much of the submissions of the parties before the Court has been focussed on the meaning and correct application of a range of circulars issued by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER). It is not however for the Court in considering an appeal under Section 13 of the Industrial Act, 1969 to consider matters which could have application across the public sector.

If the Trade Union and the employer have some issue between them as regards the operation of national circulars it will fall to another forum to consider and address such matters.

The Court in this appeal notes that this worker has, for almost five years, sought to achieve a resolution to a trade dispute. She has one interpretation as to how her pension calculation should be made and her former employer has another view.

It is clear to the Court that comprehensive information shared with the worker on the operation of relevant circulars had, at all times, the potential to assist in the achievement of a shared understanding of the matters underlying the matter before the Court.

The Court notes the efforts of the HSE in this regard over the years but also takes note of the fact that, notwithstanding repeated attempts by the Trade Union to achieve a clear view from (DPER) on matters associated with the operation of relevant circulars, a comprehensive analysis setting out the view of DPER was not issued to the Trade Union until less than 24 hours before the hearing of the Court.

The Court is satisfied that the event giving rise to this dispute was the coming into payment of the pension of the worker. The Court is satisfied therefore that a claim made in May 2016 is within time having regard to the provisions of Section 26A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as amended.

The Court makes no decision in this appeal as regards the operation of circulars issued by Department of Public Expenditure and Reform or the HSE. The Court does however take note of the history of this dispute and of the distress and upset of the Claimant following the completion of her distinguished career in the Health Sector.

In all of the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that, as matter of goodwill and as a gesture towards good industrial relations, the employer should, without prejudice to the positions of the parties on the matters underpinning this dispute, make a payment of €6,000 to the Claimant in full and final settlement of this trade dispute.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
TH	______________________
8 February 2021	Chairman