FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TERESIAN SCHOOL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pension Scheme Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and the Teresian School in relation to the introduction of a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (DC) and compensation for four members who were refused entry into the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme (DB) that previously existed.
The Union is seeking the introduction of a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme with an employer contribution of 15%, an employee contribution of 5% and compensation of €1'000 per year of service for those who were not offered entry in the DB Scheme when it existed.
Management reject the Union's claim on the basis that it could not sustain the additional cost of the suggested pension contribution and the compensatory payments in the current financial climate. Management also contend that the level of employer contribution to the pension scheme (15%) is excessive and without justification within the sector.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reachd the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24th July, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management have accepted the need for a pension scheme and compensation for the previous non availability of the scheme. At issue is the level of employer contribution to the scheme and the level of compensation payable to the members. Given the popularity of the school and its secure future, the claim as presented by the Union is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The loyalty and high standards shown by the teachers in the school have contributed to its success. It is unreasonable that following many years of loyal service that these workers are provided with inadequate pension cover.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is accepted that a DC Pension Scheme is required and that some compensation is warranted for the previous occurences with regard to membership of the old DB Pension Scheme. However, the School cannot sustain the costs of the claim as presented by the Union.
2. The level of employer contribution sought by the Union(15%)is excessive and without justification. The level of compensation is also excessive and cannot be sustained due to the financial difficulties within the school.
3. In an attempt to resolve the issue management offered to contribute 6% to the DC Scheme and to give a goodwill payment of €175 per year of service to each of the claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the circumstances of this case, including the financial circumstances of the employer the Court does not believe that it could reasonably recommend concession of the Union's claim as presented. The Court does, however, consider that an improvement on the offer made at conciliation is warranted.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the offer should be amended so as to provide for an employer conribution of 8%. The Court further recommends that the proposed goodwill payment of €175 per year of service should be increased to one of €250 per year of service. Any other terms attaching to the offer should remain unaltered.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th November 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.