This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22378

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/20/206
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22378

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE
(REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FARRELL MCELWEE SOLICITORS)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:

1. Access to Pension Scheme and Compensation

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 2 March 2021. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation:



RECOMMENDATION :

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

There is no dispute between the parties as regards whether the Claimant should be permitted access to the pension scheme of the employer. The parties are in dispute as regards the rate of pay of the Claimant for pension purposes. The parties are also in dispute as regards the entry date for the Claimant to the pension scheme.

There is no dispute between the parties as regards the liability of the claimant for pension and pension related deductions / contributions including retrospective contributions / deductions in relation to such matters (Pension Related Deduction [PRD], Additional Superannuation Contribution [ASC] and Superannuation Contributions).

It is clear to the Court that no objective basis has been identified by either party as a means to determine the appropriate rate of pay for the Claimant for pension purposes.

The Employer has put forward a proposition based on a mathematical rather than an objective basis which supports a rate of pay for pension purposes of €38,757. The Claimant, being a person who works 27 per week, contends that her full-time equivalent rate of pay should be regarded as €80,888 against which assumption she contends for a rate of pay for pension purposes of €56,000.

The Claimant contends for an entry date to the pension scheme of 2003. It is accepted by the parties that the Claimant, through no fault of hers, had a break of service of over 12 months in the period prior to 1st May 2007. Against that background the employer contends for an entry date to the scheme of 1st May 2007.

Having regard to the entire history of this matter, and noting in particular that no approved scale exists for the Claimant’s role, the Court recommends that the following arrangements should apply as a means to achieve full and final settlement of all matters in dispute

The Claimant should be permitted entry to the scheme from 1st May 2007.

The Claimant should be regarded as having a current rate of pay for pension purposes of €47,378 from which appropriate adjustments should be made to identify the rate for pension purposes from 2007 to date. The Claimant should also receive a non-pensionable allowance equivalent to the difference between her rate of pay for pension purposes and her rate of pay.

Prior to implementation of the terms of this recommendation the Claimant should be supplied with full and comprehensive detail of her liability for all appropriate contributions and deductions which result from entry to the scheme with effect from 1st May 2007.


The Court so recommends

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CC ______________________
9 March 2021 Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.