LCR23276

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal under Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 15 October 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 12 May 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

This case is one of sixteen cases lodged by Mr. Ger Kennedy acting as representative for each of the Workers. Mr. Kennedy confirmed to the Court that all the Workers he was representing understood that the decision of the Court was binding on them but not on the Employer. By email of April 2026 the representative was informed that as he submitted a total of sixteen s 20 (1) complaint forms on behalf of named individuals, the Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with these cases as a collective issue. No response was received from the representative other than he submitted 16 individual submissions.

The issue in dispute relates to the application of an additional 2.5% pension contribution that was introduced by the Employer in June 2010 and withdrawn in 2018 for all workers. The dispute is in respect of Workers who during the relevant period had attained 34 years pensionable service and are seeking a refund of the 2.5% contribution deducted during that period.

Mr. Kennedy on behalf of the Worker submitted that the issue was before the Labour Court previously as a collective issue and the Court recommended that the Staff Representative body should engage in the Internal Dispute’s Resolution procedure. The Worker in this case    processed her complaint through the internal disputes procedure where the complaint was not upheld. The issue was then referred to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman who declined jurisdiction and noted that the subject matter of the complaint affected a group of Workers.

In 2009 serious issues arose in the context of the Employer’s pension and staff were informed that there was a serious deficit. The Employer was obliged to submit a section 50 funding proposal to the Pensions Board. A proposal was put to secret ballot of the Workers which included an additional contribution of 2.5% to be made by all staff. The Workers voted in favour of this proposal.  In 2018 the Staff Representative Committee (SRC)surveyed the staff to ascertain the priorities for upcoming pay negotiations. The 2.5% additional contribution was flagged as an issue particularly for staff who had achieved 34 years and their ordinary pension contributions had ceased. Following engagement with the SRC the additional contribution was ceased for all workers in 2018.

It is the Workers position that once she had reached 34 years pensionable service in line with the terms of the pension scheme she should not have had to pay the additional 2.5% and is seeking a refund of same. 

The Employer submitted that the Workers complaint was outside the timelines in their jointly agreed Grievance and Disciplinary Policy and as such the referral does not comply with their procedure. They submitted that this matter was previously before the Labour Court, the internal Dispute resolution procedures of the SIPTU Pension and Life Assurance Plan and the Pension Ombudsman and neither outcome were favourable to the Worker. The measure was introduced in 2010 following negotiations with the SRC and a ballot of the staff and the contribution continued until 2018. The Worker in this case reached 34 years pensionable service in November 2010 but never raised any issue in respect of the additional contribution at that time. The issue was first raised by the SRC as a collective grievance in 2018 when they submitted a list of 26 questions which the Employer answered in full. A further meeting was arranged in 2019 which was attended by Mercer, staff pension Trustees and the Employers internal pension administrator, all questions raised were answered.  Further correspondence ensued and on 12 February 2020 the matter was referred to the Internal Joint Industrial Council. On 22 July 2020 the Joint Industrial Council recommended that the pension schemes internal Dispute Process should be used but this was rejected by the SRC and the matter was referred to the WRC and on to the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the Joint Industrial Council recommendation that the internal dispute process should be used.

The Worker submitted a complaint under the Pension scheme Internal Disputes resolution procedures on 28 June 2021. Her complaint was not upheld, and she was advised that the Pension Ombudsman may have jurisdiction to investigate.  The complaint was received by the Financial Pensions Ombudsman on 26 January 2022.  On 16 February 2022 the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman concluded that the complaint fell outside of their jurisdiction.

 The Court notes that the additional contribution of 2.5% was collectively agreed and was part of an expenditure and control measure that did not impact on the rules of the pension scheme. It was implemented because of the difficulties faced by the scheme at the time. The alternative would have been to allow the Defined Benefit scheme collapse. The measure which was implemented from 2010 to 2018 was done in full consultation with the SRC and was balloted on and accepted by the Workers.

The Court also notes that it is not disputed that the measure was in place from 2010 to 2018. That the measure was part of a collective agreement that was balloted on and accepted by the Workers. No issues were raised during the consultation and balloting period in respect of the application of the measure to Workers who had attained full pensionable service. Based on the submissions of the parties it is clear that the collective agreement did not contain a clause that exempted this cohort of Workers from making the contribution. Taking all of the above into account, the Court finds that the collective agreement was applied correctly to this Worker and therefore cannot recommend concession of the Workers claim.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
JNF	______________________
22/06/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Julie Nicholl-Flood, Court Secretary.