This appeal to the Labour Court was taken by SIPTU on behalf of the Complainant following a recommendation from an Adjudication Officer that instead of a pensionable increase in pay, the Complainant be awarded €2,500 in final settlement of the matter.  Click here for a review of the AO recommendation.   The Complainant's dispute in the initial claim concerned the application of an agreement on the point of retirement. The background to this dispute arises from a company restructuring in 1996 when certain promotional positions for painters were eliminated. At the time it was acknowledged that the role of painter was unlikely to change sufficiently into the future to meet the criteria for Craft Grade ‘C’ status.

It was the Complainant's case that the Plan 2000 Agreement entitles the Complainant to a 4% increase of pensionable pay on retirement, as this is the pay differential that existed between ‘B’ and ‘C’ Craft Grades and the Complainant is entitled to the benefit of a ‘C’ grade on retirement. The Respondent rejected this interpretation and contended that the intent of the agreement was to provide a painter with the benefit of a ‘C’ grade pension on retirement, if he did not receive it in his own right before then.

It was the Labour Court’s view that the Complainant has had sufficient pay increases and other awards achieved an equivalent rate of pay of a ‘C’ grade worker. On this basis, the Court is of the view that the Complainant has not been disadvantaged by not achieving a Craft ‘C’ grade status during his employment. Furthermore, the Labour Court noted that to award a 4% increase to uphold a differential that formerly existed between two grades would result in the Complainant receiving a pension that exceeds the notional rate of pay for a ‘C’ grade role and the pension benefit for a ‘C’ grade role on retirement.

The Adjudicator held that the central pillar of the 2000 agreement was an equitable one to ensure that the Complainant was not disadvantaged but awarded a payment of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter in acknowledgement that certain ambiguity existed around the agreement wording had created an element of expectation for the Complainant. The Respondent did not appeal that recommendation.

In the circumstances of this case, the Labour Court did not uphold the Complainant’s claim for a 4% increase in pensionable pay. Accordingly, the Labour Court upheld the decision of the Adjudication Office and recommended that he pay €2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/november/lcr22505.html