Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 12 February 2015
8. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in view of the fact that the Workplace Relations Bill failed to include a mechanism for retired workers to access the State's industrial relations machinery when their pensions are affected, his plans to deal with this issue. [5858/15]
View answerThe Workplace Relations Bill passed by the Dáil a few weeks ago was a missed opportunity to deal with an issue that, as the Minister has previously acknowledged, must be addressed. Normally, when an employee severs his or her relationship with an employer, he or she no longer has access to the State's industrial relations machinery. In most instances this makes perfect sense, but the one instance in which it does not is of course with regard to people's pensions. People must be given a voice when their material living standards can potentially be dramatically affected. Given that this has not been done within the Bill that Members just passed, what will the Government do to deal with this issue?
I thank Deputy Clare Daly for tabling this important question. I fully appreciate the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes whose schemes are being restructured, particularly where such restructuring may have an impact on existing or potential pension benefits. In this regard, the question of pensioner groups having access to the State’s industrial relations machinery in pursuing pension scheme grievances is an issue in which I have a deep interest and to which I have given careful consideration. In so doing, I have borne in mind that the industrial relations system in Ireland is voluntary in nature as regards access to both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Any change to that principle which would put in place a mandated right to be part of the process would fundamentally alter the conduct of industrial relations. As it stands, where changes to pension schemes are negotiated at company level, whether as a result of a crisis in the scheme or otherwise, the outcome of that engagement cannot, of itself, change the pension scheme. Rather, any proposed changes to the scheme are effected through the trust deeds and rules of the scheme and are at the discretion of the parties so designated in the rules or deeds of the scheme. In my view, it is within that framework, rather than through the State’s industrial relations machinery, that a collective approach would be most effective.
In terms of changes to pension schemes generally, the trustees of a particular pension scheme are required by law to act in the best interests of all the members, be they deferred members or pensioner members. Until recently, this has been done on an individual basis. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection has recently provided for the recognition by trustees and the Pensions Authority of groups representing the interests of retired and deferred scheme members of a particular pension scheme. The required revised section 50 guidance has been published by the Pensions Authority. From now on, the trustees of a pension scheme are required to notify the groups representing the interests of retired and deferred scheme members where the trustees of a scheme propose to apply to the Pensions Authority to restructure scheme benefits under section 50 of the Pensions Act. This notification affords the representative group an opportunity to make a submission to the trustees of the scheme with regard to such proposals. In addition, the Pensions Authority is now required to notify groups representing the interest of scheme members where the Pensions Authority proposes either to issue a unilateral direction under section 50 of the Pensions Act to the trustees of a scheme to restructure scheme benefits or to wind up a pension scheme under section 50B of the Pensions Act. This notification affords the representative groups an opportunity to make representations to the Pensions Authority in respect of such proposals. Furthermore, in such situations, the representative group also will have the option of making an appeal to the High Court on a point of law regarding such proposals.
That is not adequate at all. The reason this difficulty has arisen is that, under existing procedures, trustees already must inform everybody. Notifying people of something is not the same as engaging or negotiating with them. This is the difficulty. I will use the example of the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme, IASS, because it highlights well the point being made in this regard. At the heart of this issue, existing and deferred pensioners stood to lose an enormous chunk of the income to which they had a reasonable expectation on retirement, based on having paid into a pension for all their working lives. The retired members have made the point that €500,000 per month is being taken out of the local economy in cuts to that group alone. The people who made that decision were existing employees, trade unions, the trustees and everyone on the expert panel. The people who voted on that decision were members of trade unions in employment who were not even members of that pension scheme. The very people whose pockets have been pilfered of this money did not have a voice at the table and did not have an input into the process. I did not hear anything in the Minister of State's reply that tells me they will have a input in the future either. It simply is not good enough to suggest that someone should go to the courts or whatever when people are retired and have limited income anyway. I wish to hear in concrete terms what is going to be done about this.
The Tánaiste and I are anxious to seek to address this issue, and she and I are familiar with the circumstances Deputy Clare Daly has outlined. It was felt that the appropriate way to address concerns in the future would be through the Pensions Authority, where people would be provided with the opportunity to make submissions to the authority in the type of circumstances outlined by Deputy Daly. Previously, the views of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court were canvassed as to the possibility of using the industrial relations institutions of the State to address some of these issues. They responded with a couple of fundamental points. The view was taken, on foot of meetings between officials from the Departments of Social Protection and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, that it was clear that the solution to addressing the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes with regard to representation rights might best be achieved in the context of the pensions legislative framework. The Tánaiste has made provisions for this in terms of the details I outlined earlier. In future, this will be done through a process with the Pensions Authority rather than in the industrial relations arena.
I am afraid I do not agree. Sadly, if we do not change tack, I imagine I will be proven right. There are problems with the Pensions Authority and with trustees taking decisions that members are not happy with, and there is a problem with having an appropriate investigation into some of the activities. The difficulty is that we are talking about people's retirement in their twilight years. It is very serious considering the sums of money involved. I do not understand why the Labour Court could not be opened up to people just as a trade union can negotiate therein for its members although some of the employees under discussion may not be in that trade union. Retiree groups such as the Retired Aviation Staff Association and other registered retired groups could do the same for pensioner groups. It is about having their voice heard on an ongoing process. I refer to circumstances where a company may be involved in broader discussions on issues other from pension-related issues and where the discussions become part of an industrial relations discussion also. There has to be a voice for those concerned in this regard. There would have to be a complete overhaul of the Pensions Authority, which people feel does not have any teeth in terms of delivering justice for people who have legitimate concerns. The IASS is a very good example of that in that, despite serious questions of investment irregularity having been raised, a decision was taken to allow pensioners' incomes to be cut rather than answer some of the points.
Deputy Daly raised a couple of fundamental points on the industrial relations machinery of the State. Access to the industrial relations machinery of the State is governed by the definition of “worker” in section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, which provides, inter alia, that a “worker” means any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer.
Legal advice received by the Labour Court on a number of occasions suggests that a person who is retired cannot be regarded as a worker and cannot be party to a trade dispute capable of investigation by the court. Where a person is retired, he or she cannot have a dispute concerning his or her employment or non-employment.
The court is, however, entitled to investigate a matter that arose prior to an individual’s retirement and which was referred to the Labour Relations Commission or Labour Court prior to the individual’s retirement. The introduction of access rights for individual retired workers to the industrial relations machinery of the State under the industrial relations Acts where they have not referred their claim prior to retirement is currently under consideration. However, with regard to the very important pensions piece, a decision has been taken that the Pensions Authority represents the appropriate mechanism by which the issues can be explored. As I stated, an opportunity would be provided to people in certain circumstances where fundamental changes were being made to their scheme. They would be provided with the opportunity to make submissions to the Pensions Authority where those issues were being considered.
