FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IBTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INMO) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No: ADJ-00008777 CA-00011247-001
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 20 November 2017, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
"In all the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the dispute before me involves issues related to concerns of a body of workers. It is a claim which, if conceded, could potentially have broader implications for others.
I note that the current procedure in relation to the IPS is under discussion between the Employer and Trade Union. I would therefore recommend that the Union engage with the Employer on any amendments they consider appropriate."
On the 18 December 2017 the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 April 2018.The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
DECISION:
The matter before the Court is an appeal by an employee against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ00008777. The Union on behalf of the Appellant is seeking reimbursement of deductions made from her salary to the Organisation’s Income Protection Plan. The Adjudication Officer found that as the dispute involved issues concerning a body of workers, she was influenced by the restrictions of Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 from making a Recommendation on the issue.
The Union submitted that as there was no mention in the Appellant’s contract of employment to the requirement to make such contributions, then the deductions were unauthorised. The Union disputed that the deduction was mandatory and sought reimbursement in the amount of €919.13.
Management stated that it is a term of the Appellant’s condition of employment that she join the scheme. The Income Protection Plan was introduced in 1988 as part of the pension plan and is contributed to by both the employer and the employee - employer pays 99.2%, employee pays 0.8%. Management stated at the time of its introduction, the scheme was collectively agreed with the Union and was the subject of revision with the Union again in 2007. In 2004, for tax reasons the income protection contribution was set up as a separate deduction on payroll. It stated that neither the Union nor any other Union in the Organisation had ever brought this claim to its attention before.
The Court notes that the Organisation’s “Group Income Protection Plan” at Clause 1.5 states that all existing employees and all new employees must join the Scheme. The Court notes that the Appellant’s contract of employment dated 6thAugust 2015 at Clause 12.5 states that any agreement collectively agreed between the Organisation and the recognised trade unions is automatically incorporated into her contract of employment. The Court notes that the Organisation’s Pension Scheme (including the Income Protection Plan) was the subject of revision and negotiations between the Organisation and its Group of Unions in 2007. Following the conclusion of the negotiations, the revised proposals to the Scheme were the subject of a ballot of all Union members and the revised Scheme was then collectively agreed between the parties.
Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the Appellant is bound by the terms of her contract of employment to be and to remain a member of the Organisation’s Income Protection Plan. On that basis the Court does not find in favour of the Appellant’s claim. The Court varies the findings of the Adjudication Officer. Therefore, the Appellant’s appeal fails.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
23 April 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.