Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Self-represented

Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00005028

26/08/2025

The dispute referred by the Worker to the Commission on 26 August 2025 relates to the Employer’s placement of the Worker on an incorrect pension scheme, resulting in an underpayment of the Worker’s pension contributions. The Employer declined the Worker’s request to make good the shortfall in their pension contributions.

The Worker further submitted that the Employer failed to provide clear and timely pension statements from the time the Worker commenced employment in 2004 and failed to take appropriate action in response to concerns raised by the Worker.

The Worker was a member of a fast accrual pension scheme with a previous employer in the public sector.  The Worker commenced employment with the within Employer in 2004 and, in 2018, arranged for transfer of his previous service for superannuation purposes.

On 2 February 2022, the Worker enquired of the Employer’s pensions manager as to who he could discuss pension entitlements with and noted his membership of a fast accrual scheme.

Following the Worker’s request for a pension statement in February 2023, and receipt of incorrect information, the Worker was informed that he had been enrolled in an incorrect superannuation scheme when he commenced employment in 2004.  The Worker was further informed that this resulted in deduction of an incorrect rate of superannuation.   The Employer amended the Worker’s pension scheme record to the correct superannuation scheme from 1 March 2023.  By correspondence dated 3 November 2023, the Employer informed the Worker that the underpayment for the period from 5 January 2004 to 28 February 2023 amounted to €15,804.90 and advised that payment could be made by deduction from salary or by lump sum payment.

By email of 20 August 2024, the Worker requested the Employer take immediate action to resolve the situation, which was not of his making.   The Worker expressed his deep satisfaction and advised that he needed to get his pension contributions corrected as a matter of urgency as he was considering retiring in 2025. 

The Worker had no way of knowing that he was on the wrong pension scheme.  He encountered a lack of urgency, transparency and accountability from the Employer.  The Worker submitted there had been poor administrative oversight on the part of the Employer and also potentially a breach of the Employer’s obligations under employment and pension legislation. 

The Employer does not own the pension scheme; it administers it on behalf of two government departments. When the Employer sought guidance from its parent Department in relation to the underpayment of the Worker’s contributions and the Worker’s proposal to rectify the error, it was referred to Circular letter 0084/2015.

A recommendation in the terms sought by the Worker would impact the administrative rules of a scheme for a body of workers and potentially have broader implications for employers administering pension schemes across the public sector. There is therefore a collective aspect to any recommendation attributing liability to the Employer for an administrative error within a national public service pension scheme.

Accordingly, an Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to make a recommendation in relation to this aspect of the dispute, and it should not be addressed within the WRC’s individual industrial relations dispute process.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Worker’s dispute is without merit as the Employer has acknowledged that an error occurred in relation to the administration of the Worker’s pension scheme.  Once this error was identified, the Employer took immediate corrective action, and the Worker was placed on the correct scheme effective 1 March 2023.

In a grievance process at local level, the Employer acknowledged delays in the provision of pension statements to the Worker.

The Employer acted fairly and reasonably in addressing the Worker’s concerns, providing a consistent and thorough response through both informal and formal channels. 

In November 2023, it notified the Worker of repayment options in relation to the €15,804.90 sum of underpaid employee contributions.  It also escalated the matter internally to ascertain alternative resolution to the repayment options.  The Employer has no discretion to waive the employee contributions to the scheme, nor can it pay the contributions on behalf of a staff member.  The Employer explained this to the Worker during the grievance process and reiterates that appropriate remedy is via the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Employer acknowledged an error in enrolment of the Worker on an incorrect pension scheme in January 2004.  It further accepted that the contribution underpayment issue is through no fault of the Worker.  The financial and longer-working impact on the Worker is evident. 

The error came to light in March 2023 following the Worker’s request for pension statements. The scheme details for the Worker were rectified effective 1 March 2023, and the Worker was advised on or around 8 March 2023 that there would be an arrears in employee contributions due to deduction of an incorrect rate of superannuation since January 2004.    The Worker was advised that a formal response would issue once arrears resulting from the error were calculated.

The Worker did not hear further to the 8 March 2023 communications, and he sought an update on 31 October 2023.

On 3 November 2023, the Employer formally confirmed the incorrect set up of the Worker on a coordinated pension scheme when he commenced employment and that the error resulted in an underpayment of employee contributions totalling €15,804.90.  The Worker was informed that the sum underpaid could be settled by way of either gradual salary deductions or a single lump-sum payment.

On 20 August 2024, the Worker raised concerns regarding the repayment of outstanding employee contributions, requested immediate action by the Employer to resolve the situation and proposed a meeting to discuss.  The Worker again had to follow up with the Employer due to a lack of response.

The requested meeting was held on 6 November 2024, and the Worker was advised on 7 November of two avenues by which he could refer a complaint.

The parties liaised between November 2024 and March 2025 in relation to a Stage 3 grievance meeting.  The grievance meeting took place on 12 March 2025, at which the Employer advised the Worker that the most appropriate avenue for resolution was via the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (the “FSPO”).  The Worker was further referred to the specific mechanism in that office for addressing administrative errors.  Referral to the FSPO featured as an outcome of the stage 3 grievance meeting.

The Worker referred this dispute to the Commission on 26 August 2025.  The dispute was expressed to concern the error in pension scheme enrolment, the Employer’s failure to provide clear and timely pension statements and its failure to explain or take corrective action when the Worker raised concerns.

There has been delay by both parties in properly addressing the incorrect enrolment issue once it came to light in March 2023. 

Regarding the relevance or application of circular letter 0084/2015, the Worker does not accept that he was overpaid salary, rather he maintains an underpayment of his pension contributions.  It is difficult to reconcile this position with circular letter 0084/2015; there was an overpayment of salary to the Worker from January 2004 to March 2023 because of an underpayment of pensions contributions.  The resolution sought by the Worker of a waiver or payment by the Employer of the sum of €15,804.90 is not within the Employer’s discretion, and a recommendation to that effect would have repercussive implications having regard to the circular letter. 

The Employer informed the Worker in early November 2024 of two options through which he could pursue a complaint; the grievance procedure or the internal disputes resolution procedure in relation to pension complaints.  The Worker was subsequently advised in December 2024 that the most appropriate avenue was the internal disputes resolution procedure / FSPO.  The Worker however chose to pursue a meeting under the grievance procedure.  The Employer advises that it facilitates grievance meetings in the interests of positive industrial relations even where it does not have the scope to resolve the grievance.

The Worker advises that he elected to refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission in accordance with stage 4 of the grievance procedure because of the series of errors by the Employer and, in this regard, its breach of its duty of care to the Worker.  

The dispute referral relates to the Employer’s administration of a public sector pension scheme, and how errors should be rectified.  In the first instance, I am not satisfied that an industrial relations approach, in other words a non-binding recommendation in resolution of the dispute, is realistic given that the Worker seeks redress for what he submits are breaches of rights and obligations with a basis in law and the contribution underpayment value.   Furthermore, there is a specific mechanism for dispute resolution in relation to pension complaints and a dedicated body charged with resolving complaints against pension providers, including complaints relating to pension scheme administration.  The Worker was informed by the Employer of this complaint mechanism, and informed that it was the route most likely to yield an outcome for the Worker.

At the WRC hearing of the dispute, the Employer advised it would facilitate and assist with a referral to the FSPO.

In all the circumstances, I recommend the Worker engage with the Employer to utilise the internal disputes resolution procedure, if required, in relation to his complaints relating to pension, and to refer the matter to the FSPO.  

Industrial relations dispute – Complaints relating to pension – Administration of pension scheme