Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 89: To ask the Minister for Social Protection her views on the Labour Court judgment LCR19293; the reason she is refusing to provide funding to assist the implementation of this finding; her further views on whether such refusal is an undermining of the Labour Court by her which sends the wrong signal to other employers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38195/11]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 99: To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she intends to introduce a pension scheme for community employment scheme supervisors and assistant advisors in line with Labour Court recommendation LCR19293; if she intends to provide the necessary funding to scheme sponsors to fund the pension scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38186/11]

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 102: To ask the Minister for Social Protection her views on the Labour Court judgment LCR19293; the steps she is taking to implement this judgement; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38196/11]

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 89, 99 and 102 together.

The Labour Court recommended in July 2008 that an agreed pension scheme should be introduced for community employment (CE) scheme supervisors and assistant supervisors, and that such a scheme should be adequately funded by FÁS. Notwithstanding the positions of the Department in rejecting that liability for these costs falls to be met from public funds, this matter has been the subject of discussions between the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, my Department, and the unions representing CE supervisors. In the event that funding was required from FÁS, the implementation of the claim is not considered sustainable in light of the current and ongoing fiscal environment and the requirement to contain and reduce public expenditure. The costs of the introduction of any scheme are likely to be of the order of €3m per annum with retrospective costs of the order of at least €30m.

The Deputy should also note that FÁS is not the employer of CE supervisors and such employees are not public servants. Neither was FÁS a party to the Labour Court dispute on this matter. The responsibilities of the sponsoring organisations and the individuals concerned must also be recognised when considering pension provision arrangements.