Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86617 Case Number: LCR10888 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FUE - and - ITGWU;NEETU;ETU;AUEW;UCATT |
Claim for funding of an income continuance plan.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86617 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10888
CC86918 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10888
PARTIES: TARA MINES
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALLIED TRADES TECHNICIANS
Subject:
1. Claim for funding of an income continuance plan.
Background:
2. This claim concerns all of the Company's hourly paid workers,
approximately 600 workers. In 1983 a Pension Scheme and Income
Continuance Plan were introduced for the workers concerned. The
Plan was funded by the workers with the contribution being .66% of
salary. This rate was to be reviewed every three years.
3. In February, 1986, the insurance company operating the income
continuance plan advised the Company that the contribution rate
would have to be increased to 2.25% of basic salary. Following
this development the Union claimed that the Company pay 75% of the
premium due under the Plan. The Company rejected the claim.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
26th May, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 23rd July, 1986, which was the earliest date suitable to all
parties. However no agreement was reached. On 24th July, 1986,
the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Navan on 4th
November, 1986, which was the earliest date suitable to the
parties.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The high increase in premiums was due to the claims
experience over three years. This is a high risk
industry and it is clear that premiums will continue
to rise. An increasing number of the workers are
being directed by the Company to seek cover under the
scheme because of incapacity.
(ii) The Company's supervisory and administrative staff
have their income continuance plan cover paid in full
by the Company.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company never agreed to fund the Income
Continuance Plan. The terms of the Plan were accepted
by the Unions in the full knowledge that the
administrative staffs contributions were covered by
the Company.
(b) The hourly paid workers have higher rates of pay and
more benefits than the clerical workers. A survey in
1985 of member companies of the F.U.E. showed that in
over half the companies staff grades are covered by
income continuance schemes whereas less than a third
of companies provided the benefit for manual workers.
(c) The Labour Court recently recommended rejection of a
claim which in part was seeking to provide income
continuance for manual grades on the basis that the
benefit existed for staff grades (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10572 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P. Deputy Chairman