My interpretation of this amendment is that what might be called a horse trading situation is now introduced. That is if an employee gains in his salary from the non-payment of superannuation contributions then it is offset against the loss of privileges such as free passes, free doctors, etc. There are two aspects to this arrangement. Any increase in salary as a result of superannuation arrangements will be fully subject to income tax. I understand that half of the staff are not in the pension fund. Therefore it would seem to me that the people who have been paying into the pension fund over a long number of years might be penalised as a result. One could also interpret from this wording that an employee could be paid a lower salary than he presently enjoys should compensation be paid to him for the loss of conditions. It would appear to me that this amendment is geared towards the benefit of the commissioners and no matter what way you look at it they are not going to lose.
I also disagree with section B which refers to where a disagreement arises "on or after the vesting day". I feel that this should read "on or before the vesting day", as the stable door will be well and truly closed after vesting day. I feel that subsections (1) and (2) should be deleted entirely. As I have said already, they appear to have two meanings and I suggest that the following variation be made in the rest of the amendment (2) (a):
A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall on the vesting day enjoy conditions of service not less beneficial than the conditions of service to which he was subject immediately before vesting day.
and (2) (b)
Where a disagreement arises on or before the vesting day as to the amount of compensation given to a person in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the commissioners, such disagreement shall be referred to the Labour Court which shall determine the amount of the compensation to which the person is entitled.
I would like the Minister to consider those suggestions.