Mr. Tony Collins:

I am chairman of the national executive of the ESB Retired Staff Association. I thank the committee members for the opportunity to make this presentation on the Bill and to outline the reasons it is vital to ensure equality of representation for retired workers. While the ESB Retired Staff Association is a member of the collective network of retired workers under the auspices of the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament, this presentation draws on the lived experience of our association with ESB, as sponsoring employer, and as members of ESB defined benefit pension scheme, and to demonstrate how ESB responsibilities in respect of the pension scheme are intertwined with the ongoing operations of the scheme.

Retired workers do not have a voice nor do they have any body or organisation to refer to with grievances once they are retired longer than six months. We believe that access to the industrial relations machinery of the State is a basic right for workers and former workers but retired workers can only refer grievances they may have with their former employer up to six months post retirement. The Bill would eliminate that six-month restriction and give retired workers equality of treatment under the law. We cannot be expected to accept that only employee members of a pension scheme have a right to representation with the sponsoring employer and, if necessary, the WRC while retired workers have no such right.

The role of the pensions ombudsman is limited to complaints by individual pensioners in respect of maladministration by the trustees of a scheme, and only after the fact. It will not accept a complaint from pensioners acting collectively or represented by a body of their choosing. This leaves the sponsoring employers out of the picture entirely and in no way addresses the concerns of pensioners, which are far wider than any narrow issue of maladministration by the trustees of a scheme.

The remit of the Pensions Authority under the Pensions Act concerns itself almost exclusively with trustees’ compliance with the Act. This remit excludes individual pensioners or groups of pensioners and offers nothing by way of arbitration or direct assistance.

The Equality Tribunal, too, has a six-month time restriction post retirement, as I and my ESB colleagues discovered many years ago when we took a case to the tribunal which was overruled and failed on the six-month time limit. The case was never heard. An appeal to the Labour Court produced the same ruling.

Section 50 of the Pensions Act provides for a one-month consultation period for pension scheme members where trustees intend to restructure a pension scheme and reduce benefits. This one-month consultation period for members is totally inadequate and of no practical value as the only recourse that pensioner representative groups would have during this period would be to the courts, a very costly exercise for which retired workers do not have the financial resources.

With all of the aforementioned options virtually closed to retired workers, it is of the utmost importance that legislation is introduced without further delay to give pensioner groups a voice and a right to representation and arbitration procedures at the WRC.

As regards the sponsoring employer, in the context of ESB defined benefit pension scheme, the ESB as sponsoring employer has financial obligations to the pension scheme, appoints the scheme actuary and approves the appointment of pension scheme trustees. It also has full control of pension scheme rules and approves changes thereto and, in some instances, negotiates changes to pension scheme governance without retired workers being party to the process.

During 2022 there were two examples of the ESB holding a consultation process with employee members only on pension scheme rule changes. Retired worker members of the same scheme were excluded from this process, even though the scheme rules apply to all members. When they retire, workers have completed the terms of their contracts of employment but the employer’s pension promise delivery only commences when the employee retires, where the pension is a defined benefit scheme. It follows that the employer must support that scheme if the scheme is otherwise unable to meet the employer’s pension promise, at least in respect of already retired members.

An employer that engages under industrial relations processes with employee members of a scheme should not be permitted to impose reduced terms on already retired former employees unless pensioners are made a part of this industrial relations engagement process, alongside employee members of the pension scheme. This was not the case in 2010 when an agreement on pensions, between the ESB and trade unions and management, excluded retired workers, nor did they have a vote on the terms of the pension agreement, which directly affected retired workers. This agreement has had, and continues to have, a serious impact on their future financial security. Retired workers have no forum within which to challenge this unfair and inequitable practice of changing the terms and conditions of their retirement. This proposed Bill will, however, give retired workers that right to challenge any changes to their pension rights. Pensioners are not seeking to participate in general industrial relations matters but only on those issues related to pensions. Any industrial relations processes dealing with pension issues should be confined to pension issues only and should not embrace other matters.

I will move to redress mechanisms for retired workers. Defined benefit pension schemes are collective funds for all scheme members. Employers engage with employee members collectively on pension issues but they do not engage with pensioner members. This has a significant adverse consequence for pensions in payment. At this level there are no redress mechanisms. Creating equality of representation for all members of a scheme is what this general scheme is about. The pension promise, as a condition of employment, is the pension promised by the employer and not that of the pension scheme trustees. The pension scheme is the vehicle for delivering on the employer’s pension promise.

As retired ESB workers, we have no right to representation with the ESB on pension issues, nor do we have access to the State’s industrial relations machinery for dispute resolution, while employee members of the same pension scheme have both. This proposed Bill is designed to rectify this exclusion of retired members and to provide for equality of representation for all members of the scheme, which is the least one should expect where the pension fund is a collective one. I emphasise that this does not go beyond issues involving the pension scheme and will not otherwise encroach on employer and employee relations in any other area. In the words of the Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission:

The principle of participation underpins human rights and equality - making sure that the voices of those who are most affected by any issue, are part of any discussion or action on it. And not just a bit part, but a meaningful one where they are listened to and heard, in an accessible way, with respect and transparency.