Acting up in Civil Service and returning to lower paid substantive post before retirement

D

DingDing

Registered User
Messages
478
Hi,

Just looking at a situation for a colleague. The colleague has been operating at a significantly higher grade for a number of years, approx. 5, Covering for a career break. If the colleage was to retire in a couple of years (2) what would be the salary the pension was based on.

Assume 40 years service for simplicity. Say the acting post was 120K and the substantive post was 80K. I think there is an averaging when you get a promotion in the final 3 years (or less). Does it work the other way, say in the last 3 years, my colleague had one year at 120K and the most recent 2 years and final pension were 80K.

In my colleagues situation would they be better to retire on the higher grade, before they are stepped down. and possibly take a couple of years acturial reduction, assume my colleague is 58 and has a minimum retirement age of 60.

Also if they have to give 3 months notice, and it there was not 3 months notice that they were been stepped down, could the employer enforce the notice period and disadvantage the employee.

Just wondering if anyone can give some advice on the situation.

Also if they were buying added years, they would be probably buying them with reference to the higher pay, and get the benefit at the lower pay.

In my organisations, I can see a few people in this situation.

Also would be interesting looking at "constructive dismissal" where they could be leaving the employee with no option but to leave, protecting their pension.

I would be very interested in the discussion of this and similar cases.
 
Is this a public/civil service or a private service job/query? I suspect that there may be some key information missing from your post. I find it quite confusing myself.
 
You need to provide more information on the nature of the employer - is it a civil service post or a commercial or non commercial state agency for instance?

However in view of the fact that your colleague is near retirement s/he is most likely on a final salary pension scheme and if s/he stays on for another two years the final salary will be lower and therefore the pension would be too. Your colleague should ask for advice from the pensions section of HR, but a friend who was in a similar 'acting up' position in the public service was forced to retire early for this reason. If hr had stayed on for an extra year and returned to their 'substantiative post' his pension would have been significantly lower.

IANAL but to my knowledge constructive dismissal is very challenging to prove particularly when the person voluntarily entered an acting up arrangement (and probably signed a contract to formalise this arrangement) knowing it was temporary. So your friend would be well advised to put that idea out of his/her mind.
 
Thanks for that. The constructive dismissal was just me looking at it. I didn’t mention it to my colleague at all. You are correct but it doesn’t seem fair.

The employer would probably be oblivious to the consequences of returning people to their substantive post and the long term impact on pensions.

When I look across the organisation there are a good number of people in a similar position.

Post 95, pre 04 public servant in the education space.
 
I assume your colleague has an acting up allowance:

"What is pensionable remuneration?

Generally, pensionable remuneration is final pay (i.e. salary payable on the last day of
reckonable service), plus the average of the best of three consecutive
years’ pensionable allowances in the final ten years of service. The
benefits may, in some cases be based on an average salary. For
instance, if, within the last 3 years of service, an officer has changed
grade (e.g. been promoted) or received a personal change in pay, an
average pay figure will be used which takes account of the final salary
and the salary of the former grade and the relative periods spent in the
two grades in the last 3 years. Where the person is retiring on grounds
of ill-health, averaging does not apply if the person had the potential for
service to avoid the averaging."
 
if, within the last 3 years of service, an officer has changed
grade (e.g. been promoted) or received a personal change in pay, an
average pay figure will be used which takes account of the final salary
and the salary of the former grade and the relative periods spent in the
two grades in the last 3 years.

Thanks Ruffian, This is what I was looking for. It looks like if the grade has changed in the final 3 years, The pension will be based on the final 3 years and the pro-rata time on each grade. I would expect if the grade lowered the same would apply as per the statement above.

A downward change in circumstances in the years before your minimum retirement age should be a cause for concern.
 
I'm not so sure in the situation you have outlined. Was your colleague not substantially on the same grade but with and acting up allowance to reflect the higher grade for 5 years? He can revert to his old grade (either on his own initiative or his managements' initiative) without being demoted? If so, I suspect his higher grade allowance will fully count towards his pension.

Also, the idea that the employer would force a demotion to disadvantage the employee's pension is on the fanciful side.
 
I think its a bit farcical to be left acting up for 5 yrs. Because thats doing the job, not acting up at all, they just won't give them the grade.

The concern for me is that is they could be passed over in a competition for the grade. Its no impossible someone might do this vindictively or simply in an re-organisation by someone with no consideration how it effects people. I've seen people left high and dry in public sector "acting" roles before, though not deliberately to effect pension.

I think this is something they'd want to get some detailed pension calculation perhaps internally and maybe independently. I would guess the higher pay would be better. By how much I have no idea.
 
There would be at least one person I was aware off who would have been acting up for almost 10 years on a number of different project roles which were of huge value to the organisation. They have not yet obtained a permanent appointment at the grade and may have to revert to a much lower grade, not by choice before they meet the minimum retirement age. They would need to carefully consider their position when their current contract ends.
 
An acting up allowance is pensionable (I think there may be a requirement for a minimum period of 84 days in post). This is assuming it is a bona fide acting up position in the PS organization. Deductions are made from salary in the normal way for Superannuation. As such it is pensionable at retirement as long as it took place within the retiree's final 10 years of service - even if the retiree reverts to his/her substantial post before retirement.

AlbacoreA said:
The concern for me is that is they could be passed over in a competition for the grade.
Click to expand...
There can certainly be concern about acting up positions. But if it is a bona fide position (and not not some local sideline arrangement) then the allowance is pensionable.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s only pensionable in a pro-rata basis for the past 3 years. My colleagues would have been paid at the higher grades. And a clerical grade acting as an AP for example would have a significant difference in pension and wound I think have to consider their position.
 
DingDing said:
I think it’s only pensionable in a pro-rata basis for the past 3 years.
Click to expand...

What makes you think so?

"Generally, pensionable remuneration is final pay (i.e. salary payable on the last day of reckonable service), plus the average of the best of three consecutive years’ pensionable allowances in the final ten years of service."

"The acting‐up allowance will be reckonable for pension purposes in accordance with the rules of the Pension Scheme of which the holder is a member. Superannuation contributions will be deducted from the acting‐up allowance. In the case of members of the Public Service Single Pension Scheme the allowance while in payment will reckon in the calculation of Referable Amounts under that scheme."
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much, There is a difference if the person was paid an acting up allowance, which the above would apply, or they put them on the payscale of the new post. In which case they would have had no pensionable allowances.
 
DingDing said:
Thanks very much, There is a difference if the person was paid an acting up allowance, which the above would apply, or they put them on the payscale of the new post. In which case they would have had no pensionable allowances.
Click to expand...

There is no difference as being put on the payscale of the higher position is how an acting-up allowance is calculated. A person acting-up starts on the first incremental point off the acting-up position, except when this is lower than their current incremental pay point. In which case they start at a point on the higher scale which is higher than their current incremental point.

"A person, for the duration of the assignment to the acting-up position, should continue to be treated for pay and incremental progression purposes as if s/he had been promoted to the higher grade viz. her/his total remuneration (salary and allowance) should be equivalent to the pay s/he would be in receipt of if s/he had been promoted to the higher grade.

On the first anniversary of the date of assignment to the acting-up position, the allowance should be increased such that total remuneration corresponds to the next incremental point on the scale of the higher grade and increments on the higher scale awarded as appropriate. This process should cease when the person reaches the max of the higher scale"
 
Last edited:
DingDing said:
Thanks for this. Makes sense.
Click to expand...
In the Public sector the so called acting allowance, may be pensionable. In the civil service it’s called higher duty allowance. If the person “acts up” in the Public Sector eg Teachers, Solas staff, for 84” days it is pensioned and backdated. Contributions are taken from salary and higher duty allowance may be pensionable.

Civil servants can be in receipt of higher duty allowances for decades, ASC deducted, but pension contributions, not deducted and higher duty is un-pensioned. Union bizarrely allow this money saving tactic, by the civil service. It’s a racket.

There are some Higher Duty allowance payments pensioned by local arrangement in some civil service departments. There appears a difference between Fixed and variable allowance and how they are pensioned, fixed being more favourable.

Circular10/2008: Public Service Pension Reform: Revised method of reckoning variable pensionable allowances for pension purposes https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2008/10.pdf looks at best 10 years regarding a Variable allowance, so that if a person changes their work pattern before retirement, they should not be penalised, they average last 3 years of allowance, divide by 3, that’s based upon a nett allowance not gross, that again lessens how much is actually pensioned.

Public sector appears more favourable and fairer as they pension acting allowances.

ACTING-UP ARRANGEMENTS AND ACTING-UP ALLOWANCES FOR ALL
STAFF OTHER THAN PERSONS EMPLOYED AS TEACHERS AND SPECIAL
NEEDS ASSISTANTS IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING BOARD
Interesting High Court judgement
https://www.mccannfitzgerald.com/kn...se-the-death-knell-for-acting-up-arrangements this gentleman won his case ref C.I.D.
 
Last edited:
Not so fanciful at all. I have experienced it, have seen it with my own eyes. I believe it is cynically carried out. My opinion having seen civil servants for years in “temporary” acting positions for decades, and never promoted, passed over for promotion even though carrying out all the duties of the higher grade. Saves substantial monies and that is what matters money.
 
Last edited:
Completely farcical outmoded nonsense circulars being used are dating back in some cases for 20 years. The public servant carries out all the duties of the higher grade post for decades in some instances and the allowance is not considered in the nature of pay, semantics to benefit the organisation. This would not be acceptable in private industry. How is this not pay
 
Last edited:
november16 said:
Not so fanciful at all
Click to expand...

It is fanciful it the context of the OP.

The service at the higher level is fully pensionable as he has served more than 3 years at this level during his last 10 years of service. Being moved back to his ordinary grade does not negate this. It could be that the acting up arrangement is ended for other reasons - most acting up arrangements come to an end at some point. Also, as I understand the specific scenario in the OP the person has been acting up for about 5 years - it would be considered exceptional for it to be extended beyond this as the employee may retain the higher allowance if he is reverted to his previous role after 5 years service in the higher grade.
 
It depends is this public or civil service we don’t know. In the Public Sector it’s called Acting Up. In the Civil Service it’s called Higher Duty. This post states Acting Up. In my experience these exceptional cases are normalised, in the Civil Service, and I have worked with people whose Higher Duty Allowance, have continued indefinitely into infinity. Could you provide information re the retention of the acting allowance if in receipt for 5 years that would be very helpful thanks in advance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register