Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 154: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the cost of court cases and legal expenses accrued to her Department by virtue of their contesting the case of a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow; if she will review their entitlement to abolition of post payments on the dissolution of the National Rehabilitation Board; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23399/06]

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 158: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the way in which she proposes to deal with the many difficulties in view of legal implications that have arisen concerning the High Court ruling regarding a redundancy from National Rehabilitation Board in 2000 for a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow. [23403/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 154 and 158 together.

As the Deputy was informed in my response to his question of 9 May 2006, the matter to which he refers is a technical legal matter concerning a claim for redundancy taken to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) and appealed to the High Court by an individual, a former employee of the National Rehabilitation Board (NRB), who had not accepted employment with any of the designated public bodies under the relevant Statutory Instruments on the dissolution of the NRB.

As previously advised, the EAT decided on 19 April 2002 that the named individual had been dismissed (within the special meaning of section 21 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967) by reason of redundancy, being therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The EAT decided that the claim lay against the Minister for Health and Children as representative of the NRB (dissolved). On appeal in July 2003, the High Court found that the EAT had erred in law in determining that the Minister for Health and Children was the representative of the National Rehabilitation Board. Following this decision, the EAT on the 13 February, 2004 made a finding of redundancy in the case of the individual concerned against the NRB (Dissolved), stating that the amount due was payable from the Social Insurance Fund.

The cost of the court case and legal expenses to my Department were nil as the case was carried by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Under the relevant Statutory Instrument on the dissolution of the NRB and the Health Act 2004, the Health Service Executive is the authority vested to exercise right/discretion in relation to the superannuation issues of the individual concerned. I am advised by the Executive that it has authorised the termination of office of the individual as arising from abolition of office and his pension has been adjusted accordingly.

It is important for the Deputy to understand that the EAT did not address the position of other staff in the NRB; it dealt solely in respect of a claim by one individual who did not accept employment with one of the bodies under the SI.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 155: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the position regarding the review in the context of the Dáil Éireann debate of 18 May 2006, when she undertook to review the situation of the former staff of the National Rehabilitation Board; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23400/06]

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 156: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, in the context of her decision to abolish the National Rehabilitation Board in 2000, she will appoint a Department official to deal with the residual difficulties that have arisen in the context of employment law; if she will resolve difficulties arising under S.I. 170 and 171 of 2000. [23401/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 155 and 156 together.

I have considered the issues raised in the Dail on 18 May 2006 in relation to the dissolution of the national Rehabilitation Board. These matters have been comprehensively dealt with in a number of PQs.

The National Disability Authority Act 1999 provided for the establishment of the National Disability Authority and is the legal basis for Statutory Instrument No. 170 of 2000 which transferred certain properties, rights and liabilities of the National Rehabilitation Board (NRB) to the National Disability Authority, FÁS, Comhairle and the Eastern Regional Health Authority; and for S.I. No. 171 of 2000 which dissolved the NRB and provided for the transfer of its 184 staff to these four bodies.

Employees of the former National Rehabilitation Board were members of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. Under that scheme no provision for co-ordination of benefits (ie. between the occupational pension and the contributory Old Age pension) existed for officers. Therefore employees of the National Rehabilitation Board who were Class A PRSI contributors were entitled to a non co-ordinated occupational pension on retirement. The dissolution of the NRB followed on from intensive consultation between NRB management and staff under an independent mediator culminating in an IR agreement within which the existing terms and conditions of staff, including superannuation, PRSI status and incremental dates were protected.

Section 28(8) of the National Disability Authority Act, 1999 provided protection of terms and conditions of employment to staff transferring to other agencies from the National Rehabilitation Board. The protection offered at the dissolution of the NRB extends to immediate re-deployment only. The existing pension rights of all former staff transferred to the receiving employer. If staff subsequently changed employment again (e.g. open competition) regardless of whether the posts advertised related to previous functions of the NRB, they took on the employment terms and conditions associated with the new post.

As the Deputy is aware, one former employee of the NRB did not accept employment with any of the designated bodies. He took a claim for redundancy to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) which made a finding of redundancy against the NRB (dissolved). He then sought to have his retirement from the NRB treated as arising from abolition of office. I am advised that this was recently granted by the Health Service Executive. It is important for the Deputy to understand that the EAT dealt solely in respect of a claim by one individual who did not accept employment with one of the designated bodies.

The question of abolition of office terms, provided for under Articles 11 and 66 of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, does not arise for the former staff of the NRB where they transferred to one of the designated bodies.

As I have said the terms and conditions of employees transferring to other agencies were protected on dissolution of the NRB under the relevant legislation and are now a matter for the current employers. In the event that matters arise which are the responsibility of my Department this will be dealt with in the normal way.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 157: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the funds allocated to the National Rehabilitation Board for each of the years between 1990 and 2000 in the context of previously unanswered parliamentary questions regarding the NRB. [23402/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The funds which were allocated to the National Rehabilitation Board for the years 1990 to 2000 are as shown.

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 159: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children if, in the context of the dissolution of National Rehabilitation Board in 2000, a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath is entitled to an abolition of posts pension as was the case of another former employee of the NRB in similar circumstances. [23404/06]

Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 160: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the measures which can be taken in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath who was working for the National Rehabilitation Board when it was dissolved, to ensure their entitlement to an un-coordinated pension when they reach 65. [23405/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 159 and 160 together.

The National Disability Authority Act 1999 provided for the establishment of the National Disability Authority and is the legal basis for Statutory Instrument No. 170 of 2000 which transferred certain properties, rights and liabilities of the National Rehabilitation Board (NRB) to the National Disability Authority, FÁS, Comhairle and the Eastern Regional Health Authority; and for S.I. No. 171 of 2000 which dissolved the NRB and provided for the transfer of its 184 staff to these four bodies (referred to here as the receiving employer).

My understanding is that the person concerned transferred to FÁS on the dissolution of the National Rehabilitation Board. I understand that this person has subsequently moved to employment in the Health Service Executive.

Employees of the former National Rehabilitation Board were members of the Local Government Superannuation Schemes. Under that scheme no provision for co-ordination of benefits (i.e. between the occupational pension and the contributory Old Age pension) existed for officers. Therefore employees of the National Rehabilitation Board who were class A PRSI contributors were entitled to a non-co-ordinated occupational pension on retirement.

Section 28(8) of the National Disability Authority Act, 1999 provided protection of terms and conditions of employment to staff transferring to other agencies from the National Rehabilitation Board. The protection offered at the dissolution of the NRB extends to immediate re-deployment only. The existing pension rights of all former staff transferred to the receiving employer. If staff subsequently changed employment again (e.g. open competition) regardless of whether the posts advertised related to previous functions of the NRB, they took on the employment terms and conditions associated with the new post.

The question of abolition of terms, provided under article 11 and 66 of the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, does not arise for the former staff of the NRB where staff transferred to the receiving employer.