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???

BlackandBlue said:

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?

Click to expand...

It seems he was employed as an industrial worker in 1993 and never signed a contract. He was promoted to supervisor in 1994 and to a manager in 1996. He has only got a copy of a letter offering him the new position in 1996 and pay with no mention of terms and conditions at all.
He says that other employees who were industrial workers pre 1995 were put on an A stamp and on promotion pre 1995 were put on a D stamp( which was given to management or clerical so the PRSI rate was linked to the job. )
Hence, They have been able to retire earlier.
He however was promoted to supervisor in 1994 and manager in 1996 but kept on an A stamp and he is fairly sure that means age 65 for retirement as its linked to the industrial worker terms and conditions?
He has always been an A stamp and never had an issue with social welfare benefits and has his records showing him as A.
This issue actually came to light for one of the employees who thought he could get his dental work done on his A stamp, only to be told by social welfare that he didnt qualify as he was a D stamp. All very confusing!!


‘From what you say, is it correct to assume, that every employee who was promoted post 1995 was moved to the full rate?’
Not 100 % but I think so on the above. But this didnt happen pre 1995.

If I read that correctly your husband was never on the reduced rate prsi?

However I feel you are going down a rabbit hole fixating on prsi.

Your concern seems to be when can he retire.

When your husband started work there he did sign something.
He probably cannot remember exactly what.

His retirement benefits would have been explained to him at some point.
He probably got paper work too.
Expected pension amount, number of years needed to get this, retirement age, mandatory retirement age.
That sort of detail.

When he got promoted did his new "contract" change these?

Thanks Blackandblue. The concern is his retirement age at this stage. But also the unjust treatment of not receiving a D stamp pension.
ie if he did by some method manage to retire earlier than 65 his pension as it stands is an A one and it would mean that his pension would be a lot less until he reaches 65.

I was hoping that there might be another avenue ie perhaps discriminatory treatment via the workplace relations commission, given that previous employees were treated differently.
I will have to see if he can view any employment contracts that exist but am not confident the answer is there.

Your husband will get his pension when he satisfies the relevant criteria as per his employment pension scheme.
Age/years of service etc.

This should be regardless of whether he pays the full rate or the reduced rate of prsi.

PRSI only matters regarding where the money comes from.

You mentioned semi state so his pension probably falls under the term "coordinated(?)".

In simple terms when all is said and done he will get a pension of "X".
"X" should consist of "A" amount from his employer's pension fund and "B" which is the state old age pension.

The retirement age should be covered in the terms and conditions of his employment pension scheme.
This "should" also cover the period between this and 66.

You need to stop fixating on the different PRSI classes.

Your husband needs to read his contracts.

Regarding
I was hoping that there might be another avenue ie perhaps discriminatory treatment via the workplace relations commission, given that previous employees were treated differently.
The law changed regarding PRSI in 1995.
Once the law changes all people affected from that date should be treated under the new rules.
Based on what you say your husband's Union has taken a case and a Judge has made a ruling.

If you think a case can be made elsewhere then your husband needs to talk to his Union.

Thanks Blackandblue. Will refocus our efforts on those contracts and the union and take it from there to get some justice.

If he is eligible to retire at 60 with an A Class pension, he should be eligible for a Supplementary pension. The Supplementary pension makes up the difference between the A Class pension and a D class pension, until he gets his Contributory pension at 66.

Thanks. I suspect 65 is the age, but we will see.

The reason I was fixated on the prsi stamp is that the company seems to have put all management and clerical pre 95 on this stamp and pension scheme with 60 as the age of retirement.

Other semi states put people on a D stamp post 95( people who were in the company as an A but subsequently promoted post 95 to management. ) and the retirment age is 60 for them.

Their company fought all the rulings in the employees favour and had repeated appeals to keep the employees on the coordinated pension and as I understand it a higher retirement age.
This ruling has had knock on effects for all other semi states who had different decisions made as far as I know.

Anyway I will go and investigate the contracts and scheme further and see about a revisit on discrimination grounds..

Coffeequeen said:

This ruling has had knock on effects for all other semi states who had different decisions made as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Can you post a link to the ruling?