LCR22826

1. Compensation For Changes to Pension Scheme

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 16 May 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 September 2023.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union states that while the engagement with the company has been thorough and open, it is their members contention that an offer from the company is insufficient.

2. The Union also states that take home pay is affected by increased contributions.

2. The Union believes that the employer's offer needs to be extended to take these factors into account.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer states that the company is a start-up and faces significant costs in that context.

2. The employer has endeavoured to make every effort to reach an agreement on this matter.

3. The Employer believes it has offered a generous and fair compensation package to employees and that there is no scope to improve its offer.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

The Court has noted the extensive efforts made in good faith by both parties in their efforts to find agreement on this matter. The Court notes that the final offer made to resolve the issue reflected decisions made in negotiation as to how best to apply available resources.

The trade union has submitted that, notwithstanding the extensive review by the parties of all the facts of the matter, including with the assistance of relevant experts, a recommendation of the Court should require the employer to make available substantially more resources than have heretofore been seen by either side to be available.

The Court notes the submission of the employer as regards trends in manufacturing on site which has not been disputed by the trade union.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, it is the view of the Court that both parties will be best served by the achievement of an agreement on this matter sooner rather than later.

The Court therefore recommends that the dispute should be resolved by an amendment to the earlier offer of the employer so as to provide for a lump sum payment to be made in year four to an overall value/cost of €400,000. That sum to be applied pro rata to the scale, based on years remaining to retirement, which was applied to years 1, 2 and 3.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CDK	______________________
25 September 2023	Chairman