RE: Ill-Health Retirement Agreement

[TrueBlueTerrier]

LTB 301/09 - Ill-Health Retirement Agreement

No. 301/2009


Ref: PTC/RE/dj/409
Date: 3rd April 2009

TO ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS

Dear Colleague

RE: Ill-Health Retirement Agreement

The Committee will be aware as reported in LTB 489/2009 we have been in discussion with Royal Mail Group for quite some time to ensure that the IHR agreement is brought in to compliance with age discrimination legislation. Following a number of lengthy meetings over the last couple of months the PEC has now endorsed an amended agreement, which is attached.

The union has had the objective of extending IHR lump sum payment terms to the over 60s since the MTSF agreement was concluded in 2002. The introduction of age discrimination legislation made this extension inevitable. However, as previously reported the business linked this change with a change in payment structure. The business has throughout remained adamant that the existing payment structure, based on length of service, is indirectly age discriminatory and must be changed. Notice of executive action was given in November but was subsequently postponed to allow further discussion. Following these discussions a revised payment structure is proposed as follows:


When an employee has at least 1 year’s service and meets the criteria for retirement under ill health grounds with a lump sum compensation payment, a payment equivalent to 34 weeks pay will be made. A deferred pension will also be payable to all pensionable employees. The notice period will be subject to normal contractual notice of termination of employment or 9 weeks notice whichever is the greater and this will be with pay. The notice period will be extended to cover pro rata contractual leave during the leave year plus up to 5 days carried over from the previous year. Therefore the total payment for any individual with over 1 year service will be a minimum of 43 weeks up to a maximum of 52 weeks.


We have taken the opportunity of these discussions to emphasise the need to refocus our whole approach to the issue of ill health and ensure that any new agreement encourages managers to think of rehabilitation and adjustment to duties rather than just exit. We also feel there is a need to incorporate the provisions of the addendum to the main agreement agreed in 2003 and to update the terminology. We have successfully incorporated motion 80 carried at last year’s annual conference and the agreement now allows individuals the option to delay payment of the lump sum until the outcome of an appeal.


Another area of concern has been when a conflict of opinion may exist between the OHS and the individual’s medical advisor. We have ensured that the agreement stipulates that where the information supplied by the individual’s medical advisor conflicts with the medical opinion of the OHS, the OHS are required to seek to resolve the difference before a decision is made. We have also faced difficulties with line managers who have ignored the OHS advice and continue with IHR based on the existing wording “following receipt of the OHS advice the line manager will consider what action to take having full regard for the professional advice”. This has now been changed to say “the line manager will consider what action to take in line with the professional advice”. Also any individual has the right to an appeal without producing medical evidence.


Branches will be aware that we are currently experiencing lengthy delays to independent medical appeals boards because of the difficulty in coordinating the two medical specialists involved. In order to ensure appeals are dealt with speedily we have agreed the composition of the board will be changed – only one specialist will be involved, an independent specialist in occupational health.


We have recently had cases where individuals who have agreed to reduce their hours to assist their rehabilitation and ensure their continued employment have lost financially where subsequently they still need to leave the business, because the lump sum calculation is worked out on their reduced level of earnings. The agreement now states “In the event that a permanent reduction in contractual hours, agreed as part of an adjustment to duties following ill health does not work out and the employee is subsequently granted IHR on the basis of the cause of the original referral the calculation of payments will be based on full time grade equivalent pay”.


The changes to the agreement will come into effect from 1st May 2009. Cases referred after that date will be dealt with on the basis of the revised agreement.

Summary


It is clear that the business will not move from its position of ending the service related calculation. We have been able to significantly increase the proposed level of payment, from 26 to 34 weeks, which together with notice and payment for annual leave would produce a payment of between 43 and 52 weeks pay dependent on circumstances.


In addition, we have been able to improve the agreement in various other ways outlined above. We believe that overall this is a constructive move forward in respect of the IHR procedure which refocuses the approach and encourages people to think of rehabilitation rather than just paying people off. Negotiations have been difficult but we have been able to revise the agreement in a way that fully complies with the age discrimination legislation and achieves conference policies.


Any enquiries to Ray Ellis’s office, quoting reference PTC/RE/dj/409.
Email address: rellis@cwu.org


Yours sincerely



Ray Ellis,
Assistant Secretary


2009 Agreement in http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 36&t=15538" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madelin4]

Ok, so a person with just over 1 years service will get what say someone with 9 years service will get? it is a good deal for the just over 1 year guy! What about someone who has been here for say 22 years? They will just get more notice i take it?

Also, mayb it will make it much harder to leave the business on IHR terms going on that, at the moment 2 people in 1 month went like this in an office i know.