Moving Jobs within Public Service effect on pension

ADK

Registered User
Messages
53
Hi I have a chance to move employers within the Public service onto a higher payscale (from LA to Dept of Defence)- I am wondering what affect this will have on my pension.

I have been a local authority worker since 1999 without any gaps in my employement, I was appointed initially to a technical grade.

In 2006 I was promoted to a professional grade(after studying at night) and have been working in that role since, I got a promotion in 2015.

my queries are as follows
1)Am I entitled to professional added years in my current position? - i have asked this of my own HR dept but have yet to get an answer I would presume no as I did not join the PS as a professional. If I did move an entitlement would be reluinquished?.

2)As a pre 2004 entrant to PS I presume my minimum retirement age(The age I can access my full pesnion) would be 60?(I started age 20) - would this still be the case if i moved?

I queried this as follows: Q: If I was appointed to this role would my existing pre 2004 superannuation conditions remain unchanged?
A: Your pension entitlements would remain the same – you will continue to be a member of the non-contributory pension scheme – we will look after transferring your service to our Department.

would appreciate any guidance on this if anyone knows as obv this has a big effect on whether i would move.
Thanks
 
Hi I have a chance to move employers within the Public service onto a higher payscale (from LA to Dept of Defence)- I am wondering what affect this will have on my pension.
What kind of move is this? Transfer or competition?
 
As a pre 2004 entrant to PS I presume my minimum retirement age(The age I can access my full pesnion) would be 60?(I started age 20) - would this still be the case if i moved?
You should be ok on this score, as you would be moving without a break in service (or a break of less than 26 weeks). This is from the Single Scheme booklet:

"Am I a member of the Scheme?

The Single Public Service Pension Scheme started on 1 January 2013. If you joined the Public Service for the first time on or after 1 January 2013 and are working in a pensionable position, this is generally the Pension Scheme that applies to you.
The Scheme also applies if you are a former pensionable public servant who rejoins the Public Service in a pensionable position, on or after the 1 January 2013 and you had a break of greater than 26 consecutive weeks between public service posts.
This rule does not generally apply if you were a member of a pre-existing Public Service pension scheme before 2013 and subsequently availed of an approved period of unpaid leave, for example, career break. This means that you would continue
as a member of your pre–existing Public Service Pension Scheme on your return to employment from the approved period of unpaid leave."


I queried this as follows: Q: If I was appointed to this role would my existing pre 2004 superannuation conditions remain unchanged?
A: Your pension entitlements would remain the same – you will continue to be a member of the non-contributory pension scheme – we will look after transferring your service to our Department.

It would seem they are accurate in saying that your pension entitlements remain the same. However, if you joined the PS in 1999 then it is highly unlikely that you are in a non-contributory scheme. The latter ended for entrants after 1995. But no change from your current contributory scheme.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ADK
I often ask about the added years and get various responses which can be summarised as 'whatever HR fancy' at the given time of your retirement, though l think you may have to go the distance till 67 and get a few added years to get you to the 40 yes service mark...

if you are in a union may be useful to supply them with all your paperwork, job offers etc and get them to get 'official' paperwork on your behalf from HR related to your situation and save yourself from getting the runaround and ensure you have a paper trail....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ADK
Thanks for the feedback so far, its very confusing, I might talk to my union. The move is by way of competition
 
It would seem they are accurate in saying that your pension entitlements remain the same. However, if you joined the PS in 1999 then it is highly unlikely that you are in a non-contributory scheme. The latter ended for entrants after 1995. But no change from your current contributory scheme.
I dont really understand the implications of this ER?
 
I dont really understand the implications of this ER?
If you joined the PS in 1999 you are almost certainly in a contributory pension scheme (are you paying Class A PRSI?). So they were incorrect to say that "you will continue to be a member of the non-contributory pension scheme". However, I guess this is a misunderstanding on their part. The bigger point is that they are saying that you will remain a member of your existing pension scheme (which is contributory), and will not be transferring to the Single Scheme.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ADK
As regards professional years it is probably difficult to get a definite answer to this until retirement. For example, even though the specific grade may be eligible for added years in general terms, an individual may not have any entitlement if they retire early, eg, with a preserved pension or through CNER. So you may get a general statement before you apply for retirement but you will not get a specific statement of your own entitlements.

As I understand it, the general rule is that added years only apply where the position was advertised with specific professional qualifications and experience as essential for the post, and that it would not generally be possible for a candidate to acquire such qualifications and experience before the age of 25 (with 19 as a baseline), ie, they would require at least 6 years full time. After that it depends on the particular post, age at joining, year of joining and age at retirement. There are actually 3 different schemes with variations on the details.

Does the new post you are interested in require your professional qualifications and experience as essential? If not, I think it unlikely that any potential entitlement to added years would transfer with you ( but I have no expertise in this).
 
Note that some PS pension schemes are non-contributory.

This is nothing whatsoever to do with the non-con State pension.

It is also separate from the issue of PRSI class D vs class A.

Most PS pay 6.5% pension conts, and always have, e.g. teachers.

However, civil servants did not pay the main 5% cont, just the 1.5% S&C.

University lecturers pre 1995 did not pay the 5% main cont.

There may be other cases.

I think, but am not 100% sure, that all PS pensions after April 1995, are contributory?
 
My mistake, Protocol. The Class D do contribute but at a lower rate. However, the main point for ADK is that they indicate that he would stay in his existing pension scheme, which means that his normal retirement age would remain at 60.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ADK
My mistake, Protocol. The Class D do contribute but at a lower rate. However, the main point for ADK is that they indicate that he would stay in his existing pension scheme, which means that his normal retirement age would remain at 60.
thanks for all the replies, its hard to understand, I am Class A, this quote is the crucial point for me.
 
thanks for all the replies, its hard to understand, I am Class A, this quote is the crucial point for me.

Which point is crucial ? The Single Scheme guide booklet say that somone who joins from an existing PS scheme stays in that existing scheme unless there is a break in service of 6 months or more. The response you got from HR in the new role indicates the same thing (even if there is some confusion about whether your existing scheme is contributory or non-contributory). If you stay in your existing scheme you keep the terms and conditions of your existing scheme - that includes "normal retirement age", which is 60 for pre-2004s.

You could ask them to confirm again that you would stay in your existing scheme, but there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

The professional added years is a seperate issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ADK
The crucial point for me is the age, I dont want to have to be working another 5 years until 65 if i move. thanks
 
just to update on this, i got a contract offer today, feeling very dissapointed, in the offer they say im going onto the Non – Contributory Pension Scheme for Non-Established State Employees (as applicable to Non-Established Civil Servants even though im currently on the Local Government Superannuation Consolidation Scheme 1998 (to reflect the introduction of Class A PRSI for all ‘new’ public servants from 6/4/1995)
. My current scheme you can access pension benefits at 60 whereas on this new scheme 65 without being actuarily reduced? why would anyone go fro this?
 
It may be just you are offered a generic contract. I work in the HSE recruitment and I always refer these type of querys to our Superannuation dept (they do not like it. At all).

Email :

your work record in the public service/civil service

Ask if they are putting you on the correct scheme, as based on your understanding/research of public service/civil service pension schemes, you don't believe you are.

You are of of the view you are being placed on an incorrect pension scheme as you have been employed since 1999 in the public service/civil service.
 
Last edited:
It may be just you are offered a generic contract.
It is certainly worth seeking clarification. However, the situation seems to be that the actual position advertised here is not as a public servant. The prior status of the applicant is, therefore, probably not relevant. The appointment will be as an employee of a public service body rather than as a public servant. These positions seem very rare but apply in certain circumscribed areas, eg, a civilian employee attached to the defence forces.

My current scheme you can access pension benefits at 60 whereas on this new scheme 65 without being actuarily reduced? why would anyone go fro this?

Yes, it is hard to see many pre-2004 public servants being tempted by this, despite the higher salary.
 
Back
Top