FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAGNA DONNELLY ELECTRONICS NAAS LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Full Redress Of Pension Benefit
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is a former employee of the Company. He worked there from April 2001 until May 2007 at which time the Company closed. The Company contributed 10% annually into a pension fund on behalf of the Claimant for the six years of his employment. It is the Claimants argument that the amount offered to him from the pension fund on the winding up of the Company, was much lower than could be fairly expected. The Company maintains that the management and administration of the pension fund is the responsibility of the trustees.
On the 15th February,2008 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th April, 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Approximately 10% of my salary was put into the pension fund. I have talked to financial advisors who have stated that I have received substantially less than I should have anticipated. I received no information on the scheme when I joined the Company and was not told that it was optional. I received statements every year but they did not include a transfer value.
2 There should be some kind of recompense instilled by the Company as most employees never got the opportunity to realise their due pension benefits over years service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 To the best of the Company's knowledge the transfer values have been calculated in accordance with the basis agreed between the Society of Actuaries in Ireland and the Minister of Social Welfare & Family Affairs.
2 The pension scheme is a defined benefit, non-contributory scheme. It is the responsibility of its trustees not the Company. It was in deficit but the Company put money into it to make it solvent
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts the assurances given by the Company (now dormant) through a non-executive director/ former financial controller, who attended the Court, that the pension fund meets the minimum standards required by the Pension Board.
The Court distinguishes the legal separation of the Company and the responsibilities imposed on the pension trustees of the Company. The Court accepts the assurances given that the trustees have discharged its full responsibilities to its members.
The Court cannot therefore accept the complaint raised by the former employee as being reasonable and accordingly, decides his argument fails and cannot recommend any alteration to the existing position
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st May,2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.