INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CORK MASTER PRINTERS ASSOCIATION (CMPA)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
GRAPHICAL PAPER & MEDIA UNION (GPMU)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Pension contributions.
2. The Cork Master Printers Association represents six companies in Cork. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 65 members for an improvement in the present Pension contributions of the CMPA.
At present there is almost parity between the association and employees' contributions. The Union states that in the past the association's contribution level was based on the same level as Irish Master Printers Association. The IMPA level of contribution is now three times that of employees' contribution. The Union is seeking parity of employer contributions with the IMPA on a phased basis. The association rejects the claim on the basis that it would be extremely costly. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 18th of April, 2000 and on the 17th of May, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of August, 2000.
3. 1. A substantial differential now exists between the Cork Master Printers Association and the Irish Master Printers Association Pension Schemes. In the past these schemes have been maintained at the same level.
2. At present there is almost parity between the employers' and employees' contributions which is not acceptable.
3. The Union is seeking parity of the employer contributions with the Irish Master Printers Association.
4. 1. The comparable employment is the Irish Print Federation and not the Irish Master Printers Association. The Association's Pension Scheme is not out of line with that of the Irish Print Federation Pension Scheme.
2. In the current climate the Association cannot make improvements to the scheme as to do so would be extremely costly and would result in follow on claims.
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties and to the additional information provided subsequent to the hearing.
The Court is not satisfied, on the information made available, that the pension in question is substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments, within the meaning of Clause 8 of the PPF Agreement. The Union's claim is, therefore, precluded by that Agreement.
Notwithstanding the above, the Court regards the Union's claim for a 50% spouses pension as reasonable and in line with general standards. It recommends that this claim be conceded.
The Court further recommends that at the next actuarial review the parties examine the scope which may exist to improve the death in service benefit payable under the scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th September, 2000______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.