Semi state fought a DSP D stamp ruling for its employees in the High Court and ruled in its favour on a technicality- What to do???

C

Coffeequeen

New Member
Messages
10
Readers,
My husband has been in this semi state since 1993 as a worker and promoted to management in 1996 and was paying an A stamp. He and 40 others became aware of a misclassification issue over ten years ago and wrote to Social welfare. (This would mean that he could retire at 60 ,not 65 and receive full state pension).
Social welfare awarded him a D stamp but the company wouldn’t agree and spent a fortune in legal fees fighting the case all the way to the high court and because they have a lot more money than the employees, eventually won the case last year. Unions were involved but to no avail.
It seems now that this High court decision is being used to ‘sort out’ other state/semi state prsi misclassifications and this was in the media last summer for one council.
Is there any other avenue that can be explored, the workplace relations commission or do we just have to accept that money and power wins all?
Please advise,if you can.
 
What does his pension statement say regarding retirement age?
Some semi states will have a "fund" to make up the shortfall between 60 and receipt of the state pension.
Check the annual report.
 
Thanks, it says his retirement age is 65, that is the problem. He would like to and always through he could go at 60. Other colleagues who were in the company after him have gotten the D stamp, his is being fought on a technicality and is really bad form of the company.
I will look at the annual report though? Do you think there may be a contingency in there and that would be an avenue to explore?
 
2 different things.
What does his pension statement say about.
Normal retirement age.
Retirement other than at normal retirement age.

In 1994 new employees in semi states started paying A contribution.

When he got promoted in 1996 what did his new role contract say?
Was it sorted of a fixed term which got constantly rolled over?
In our organisation management roles above a certain level are on a personal contract.
Defacto no longer staff.
 
Last edited:
The pension statement says normal retirement age is 65, However staff who have paid modified PRSI whose pension benefits are not coordinated with the state pension( contributory) may retire any time after their 60th birthday.( but he is deemed not one of these, unfortunately).
He joined company as a worker in 1993. The court and the Dept of Social welfare deemed him permanent and pensionable, however due to some circular argument that makes no sense and is just a loophole to avoid the company paying up, the company won its case.
He should have been put on the D stamp on promotion, that is the issue. He is not on a personal contract just middle management.
 
Permanent and pensionable does not mean he should be on class D.
It means he is a permanent staff member and will get a pension when he retires.
We have staff who pay class A and can go at 60 subject to terms and conditions as dictated in their pension statement.
Our organisation has a fund to pay "supplementary" "benefits" until they are in receipt of the state pension.

In layman's terms "normal retirement age" aka mandatory is when they kick you out and you couldn't do a lot about it (see a post earlier today where the Dail has passed legislation banning mandatory retirement ages below the state pension age).

What does his pension statement and contract of employment state regarding retirement other than at 65?
This needs to be read in conjunction with the court ruling.
The court ruling trumps any relevant sections of his contract.
 
Coffeequeen said:
the company wouldn’t agree and spent a fortune in legal fees fighting the case all the way to the high court and because they have a lot more money than the employees, eventually won the case last year
Click to expand...


It's a lot more likely that the reason that the company won its case in the High Court was because of what is written in the relevant Social Welfare legislation. And it's a tad offensive to whatever High Court judge was involved to suggest that he (or she) found in favour of the company "due to some circular argument that makes no sense"!
 
Thank you, That's interesting to know about your organization.
I only have the short pension statement ( three page document). Perhaps there is a more detailed one available.
I will have to check out his contract of employment also.
My understanding is that they cant go before 65 as a number of the 40 employees have had to stay on.
It is difficult to accept especially where there are colleagues who were in the organization at the same time and after him that have received the d Stamp and where some have taken early retirement.
Marsupial said:
It's a lot more likely that the reason that the company won its case in the High Court was because of what is written in the relevant Social Welfare legislation. And it's a tad offensive to whatever High Court judge was involved to suggest that he (or she) found in favour of the company "due to some circular argument that makes no sense"!
Click to expand...
Money talks.. simple as.
 
The "short statement" you refer to is, I suspect, his annual statement of expected benefits. I get one each year.
There should be a trust deed/booklet somewhere.
It is very likely he did receive one, but it was probably years ago and was put somewhere "safe".

When your husband started employment in 1993 he probably got some form of contract.
When he got promoted in 1996 he got a new contract of some sort.
You mentioned the Union, so since 1996 there have been some form of industrial agreement's (plural) in the intervening 28 years.
You need to read them sequentially to find all references to
1 pensions
2 prsi classes
3 promotion/grade structures.
You mentioned "middle management", however that may be your perspective while the employer has deemed them to be a bit more.

Then you need to apply the wording of the court to these.

You also mentioned that some of the "40" must stay.
Again some mechanism was used to decide who stays and who goes.

You mentioned colleagues who started after him also paid class D.
This would have been true until the start of 1994 when all new hires should have been paying class A.

Regarding these individuals retiring at 60 you have not clarified if they were the same grade as your husband.

The Union took the case to the court as they probably felt there was an arguable case.
In most things you have a belief/opinion, but until a Judge calls it.
Then you have a definite decision on what's what.
 
Final point
Anyone paying class D would not normally qualify for the state pension.
Terms and conditions apply, previous employment, employment post retirement but before state pension age may permit qualification.

Alny supplementary employment while paying class D should not count as "reckonable" for paying full prsi.
 
Permanent and pensionable public service employees (except those in Classes B and C recruited before April 6, 1995) are in Class D.
 
Marsupial said:
It's a lot more likely that the reason that the company won its case in the High Court was because of what is written in the relevant Social Welfare legislation. And it's a tad offensive to whatever High Court judge was involved to suggest that he (or she) found in favour of the company "due to some circular argument that makes no sense"!
Click to expand...
Money talks.. simple as!
Marsupial said:
Surely you're not suggesting that the semi-state employer bribed the judge!
Click to expand...
Anything is possible as we can see in todays world. Who knows? All I know was it was fought at a very high level between semi state /state bodies and the ones who benefited the most were the legal people and those who lost were the ordinary folk.
Conan said:
Public service employees recruited after 6/4/1995 are generally Class A. Prior to 6/4/1995 are generally Class B or Class D.
Click to expand...
Thanks Conan/Hollybud, this was our understanding too but the courts have ruled against these employees that were pre April 1995 and were deemed pensionable and permanent purely because the company fought against various rulings from the courts until they got the answer they wanted. So unfair!
 
Our organisation went semi star in 1994 hence my mistake. Sorry,
.
Point still holds regarding other employees who started after her husband but before he got promoted.

There has been a court ruling on the "correct" prsi class for her husband.

What is now of concern is did his promotion (or something else)
alter his terms and conditions over retirement age.

The prsi class should not have altered his retirement "benefits"
 
Thanks Blackandblue for your insights. It seems the company awarded them an A stamp and didnt change them to a D on promotion. One of the requirements to a D stamp is to have ‘adequate sick pay cover’ ie not revert to the state for it.
Because they had been deemed an A the sick pay would include reverting to the state, hence they didnt have adequate cover!! Get thr circular argument? The employees could never have adequate cover when the ‘employer’ decided on their prsi status.
Employees in other state/semi state had been put on a D and are now being told based on this ruling they should have been an A!

Anyway I was hoping there would be another way around it but I will look into all you’ve said re retirement age.
I was confused by your final point though? He is an A stamp so what is the relevance?
 
His retirement "benefits" would be outlined in his contract.
The rate of prsi he pays would be largely irrelevant in this context.

Depending on what his contract says for example.
After 40 years you get 40/80 of final salary as a pension.
Or pro rata amount depending on years of service (37 years equates to 37/80 etc).

In the wider semi state environment most would have their own pension fund to provide these benefits.
Where the latter exists, and the employee pays the full rate, it would state that the fund will pay x and you claim the OAP giving the equivalent "total" benefits as per contract.
Also there should be transitional arrangements for those who would be eligible to retire, based on contractual obligations, prior to reaching the actual state retirement age.
 
From what you say, is it correct to assume, that every employee who was promoted post 1995 was moved to the full rate?

Regards sick pay schemes, this to should be covered in his contract.
For example.
Full pay for X months, half pay for Y months etc ( or none).
It would also state that those who pay the full rate get equivalent benefits but must claim from social welfare.
They either give the cheque (old school) tote employer or the employer reduced their pay by the equivalent amount.

Either way they should get the benefits there contract says they are entitled to.

Your husband got a P60 each year from 1993 to when they stopped issuing them.
In 1996 it should have stated X weeks class D and Y weeks class A.
Post 1996, depending on his age at the time he may not initially have qualified for certain social welfare benefits.
Was this ever the case and how was it addressed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top