INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
HEITON BUCKLEY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Improvements in the Company's pension scheme.
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of 180 staff employed as general operatives, warehouse staff and drivers. It is seeking an improvement in the Group's pension scheme as follows:-
(a) The reduction in the level of integration with the state pension from 1.5 times to 1 times a single person's Social Welfare Pension.
(b) Pensionable pay to reflect all earnings.
(c) Death in Service - a spouse's pension at 50% of the scheme based on member's projected service.
(d) Death in Retirement - a spouse's pension at 50% of the uncommuted member's pension.
Management states that during local negotiations it made an offer to improve certain elements of the pension scheme but this was rejected by the Union.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 30th of November, 2000 at which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals to try and resolve the dispute. However, following a ballot of the members it was rejected. A further conciliation conference was held on the 6th of March, 2001 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st of March, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of June, 2001.
3. 1. The rate of State intervention should be reduced from 1.5 times to 1 times a single person's Social Welfare Pension.
2. A spouse's pension should be introduced immediately for both death in service and death in retirement.
3. The definition of pensionable earnings should be revised to reflect all earnings to a maximum of 125% of basic salary.
4. 1. The overall conditions of employment compare favourably with and in many cases exceed that of other companies within the industry.
2. The Company's pension scheme is not out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employment.
3. The Company is prepared to consider improvements in the pension scheme. However, any improvements would have to be brought in on a phased basis.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
The Court has considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court finds the Company position to be reasonable given the cost of back funding of changes.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company offer made at the Labour Relations Commission be made available to the Employees and that this be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th July ,2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.