Mr. Manuel Cortes:

I thank the Chairman for allowing us the opportunity to come here today to present of behalf of our members the many concerns they have about the CIÉ group pension scheme situation. TSSA members work in CIÉ, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Eireann in the clerical, supervisory and executive grades. Our members are salaried staff and as such are members of the CIÉ staff pension scheme of 1951. It should be noted that we have members who on retirement will only have access to a CIÉ pension, namely, D class staff employed prior to April 1995, and members who will have access to a combination of both CIÉ reduced rate and the State pension, namely, A class staff employed after April 1995.

In the context of giving the committee some background, in 1994, as others mentioned, five pensions schemes were combined to leave us with the two current schemes, the CIÉ staff pension scheme 1951 and the pension scheme for regular wages staff. At the time, the two current schemes were in surplus. This allowed the CIÉ board to merge the other three schemes that were closed and in deficit into the current schemes. It was accepted by allowing this to occur that CIÉ would ensure the solvency of the two remaining pension schemes. In fact, this was then backed by statutory instruments, SI 323 of 2000 and SI 205 of 2010. Rule 20 states: "In every year there shall be a contribution from the Board to the fund of such sum as the Board after consulting the actuary determines to be necessary to support and maintain the solvency of the fund." Our contention is that this has not been happening.

The management of CIÉ approached the trade union group in 2010 to present the figures for the schemes at that time. Due to the situation of the economy at that time, management expressed concerns on the financial health of the pension schemes. As part of the presentation to the trade union group, the usual solutions, none of which was palatable, were tabled to the trade unions. These solutions ranged from increased contributions from members to change of benefits and even closing scheme to new entrants. At the time we pointed out to the company that, as per the scheme rules, the company was not making contributions to the required level - there is an error in the document that we sent to the committee which stated "3.6%" and should have said - of 3.6 times the employee contributions. The company had been making a contribution that was equivalent on average to 2.8 times the employee contributions. We stated clearly that until such time as this gap had been bridged we would not enter into any discussions with the company.

Since then, no further meaningful discussions have taken place with our union. We have repeatedly asked for full and frank independent advice to assist the process, in particular, echoing what others have already stated, independent legal advice, and this has been denied. There is no way that we will engage in further talks until this request has been granted. That is our clear position. We need to have independent legal advice before we engage any further with the company over these issues.

The talks at the Workplace Relations Commission have been suspended. We are a union that is renowned for trying to engage with employers at all levels to try to resolve issues through negotiations but what we cannot do is go into talks with a gun loaded against our members. That we do not have the full facts and that we have been denied access to independent legal advice means we are in no position to re-engage with the company at this point.

It is worth noting the agreement that was reached with the company in 1994 for the rationalisation of the scheme - it is in our report, a copy of which has been furnished to the committee members. I will not go through every issue but suffice to say the committee should note our members bailed out the scheme. The bailout by the company's employees, our members who are contributing week in week out, was in today's money in excess of €180 million. We sank the cost of the administration of the scheme, which is €1.5 million per year. It is now being paid from the funds within the scheme. We have honoured that side of the deal but the employer has failed to fully act on rule 20, by not ensuring that the scheme is fully funded. That has been our major contention.

To conclude, I will make some further remarks. First, CIÉ is a semi-State employer. There was a recent report conducted by McCarthy in 2011. McCarthy found that the company had a low-pay profile, with low employer pension contributions. In fact, out of the 11 schemes that McCarthy looked into, the one that covered our members within the CIÉ group was eighth lowest when it came to a low-pay profile. These are not people with lavish pensions and salaries. These are hardworking people who are contributing to have some dignity in retirement and the company is currently not funding the scheme to the level it should to allow them to do so.

Our members are further concerned that both pension schemes are showing mild financial improvement over recent years. As the committee will be aware, there has been a recovery in the Irish economy, in bond markets - but not much - and in equities. The company still appears determined to attack the defined benefit scheme to the detriment of our members.

I repeat that, as a trade union, we always look to act in the best interests of our members. We are always prepared to engage in discussions with employers on any issue, including pensions, but we are not prepared to do that unless we have a level playing field. We have asked repeatedly for us to be given access to independent legal advice and that has not been forthcoming. As a result, we will not engage any further with the company until that has been achieved. The committee has heard the same from the three unions on this point and I hope that the committee will use its good offices to ensure that the company sees sense and allows us to have that advice. If the company is so confident that it is right, then this legal advice should not prove problematic to it and will, I suppose, prove that what the company has been telling us is correct. We suspect that the reason this legal advice is not forthcoming is because we are right and the company is wrong. It is our firm view that the company has flouted the law of the land. This is a statutory scheme. It was set up with statutory instrument and the company is not compliant with its obligations to fund the scheme.

I thank the committee members for listening to us this morning. I will take any questions the committee members wish to throw at me.