• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Investigation Reports /
• Investigation Report on the delay by the MWHB in calculating arrears of superannuation payable by two Public Health nurses for previous service

Investigation Report on the delay by the MWHB in calculating arrears of superannuation payable by two Public Health nurses for previous service

2. The Preliminary Examination

2.1 My Office sought a report from the Mid-Western Health Board on the two complaints. In the course of correspondence with the Board, my Office suggested that, on the basis of the evidence emerging from the examination, the Board might wish to consider making a compensatory payment to both complainants in view of the additional expense incurred by them as a result of the Board's failure to deal with the cases in a timely manner.

Responding to this request the Board advised me that in relation to Ms Dillon, while her date of appointment was 6 December 1997, her Permanent Appointment Order was not signed by the Board's Personnel Officer until 3 June 1999. According to the Board, its Superannuation Section is not made aware of new appointments until a copy of the Appointment Order, accompanied by the personnel file is received from its Recruitment Section.

2.2 The Board said that the Superannuation Section was not in a position to look at the file until November 1999. At that point Ms Dillon was issued with explanatory information relating to the Superannuation Scheme which informed her that contributions owing on previous reckonable temporary service would be levied on her pensionable pay at the time the contributions were being paid. This previous service would have to be verified by the respective bodies with whom she had been employed. Verification was received by the Board in October 2000 and Ms Dillon was subsequently notified of the cost of the contributions to be paid.

2.3 In relation to Ms O'Sullivan, the Board said that while her date of appointment was 26 January 1998, her Permanent Appointment Order was not signed by the Board's Personnel Officer until 21 May 1999. On 26 November 1998, Ms O'Sullivan was issued with the explanatory information relating to the Superannuation Scheme which informed her that contributions owing on previous reckonable temporary service would be levied on her pensionable pay at the time the contributions were being paid. At this point Ms O'Sullivan's personnel file was requested to be returned to the Recruitment Section and was not sent back to the Superannuation Section until after 21 May 1999.

2.4 Ms O'Sullivan was also advised that previous service would have to be verified by the respective bodies in which she had been employed. Verification was received by the Board in January 2001 and she was subsequently notified of the cost of the contributions owed in February 2001.

2.5 Rules and policy issues relating to the operation of the Local Government (Superannuation) (Consolidation) Scheme, under which superannuation contribution of officers of health boards are levied, are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and Local Government (DoELG). On the question of compensation for the extra cost of the superannuation arrears bill, the Board indicated that it had sought clarification from DoELG, in November 2000, to see if it could waive the additional costs incurred. However DoELG advised that contributions payable are levied on the individuals pensionable pay at the time the contributions are being paid. The Board was further advised by DoELG that this is a statutory requirement and that the Department was not in a position to allow local authorities, including health boards, to depart from these statutory provisions.

2.6 I wrote again to the Board and explained that in suggesting that a compensatory payment might be warranted in these two cases, I did not wish the Board to depart from the statutory provisions of the scheme. I pointed out that it had taken the Board approximately three years to calculate how much the complainants would have to pay in additional superannuation contributions and that, as a consequence, because of salary changes in the interim, the arrears had increased significantly and were very much in excess of what would have been payable by them if their cases had been dealt with by the Board within a more reasonable timeframe. In this regard I said that the point at issue was the Board's delay in dealing with their cases and that it had nothing to do with the statutory provisions of the scheme.

2.7 I again asked the Board to consider the question of redress with a view to making a compensatory payment to both complainants reflecting the losses they had incurred. The Board responded by saying that it could not accede to this request. It pointed out that there were approximately 1,500 cases on hands where the issue of compulsory purchase of part-time and temporary service was involved and while not all of these were similar to the cases of the complainants, a sizeable proportion were.

2.8 In light of the Board's response I decided to commence an investigation of the complaints.

2.9 Following the commencement of the investigation I received a further similar complaint from Ms Iris Nolan*. Following receipt of Ms Nolan's complaint she was advised that I had already received two complaints relating to the same subject matter as her complaint and that it was intended to carry out an investigation of those complaints, under Section 4 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980.

In this regard Section 4 (6) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980 states that:

"It shall not be necessary for the Ombudsman to investigate an action under this Act if he/she is of opinion that the subject matter concerned has been, is being or will be sufficiently investigated in another investigation by the Ombudsman under this Act."

In accordance with this section of the Act, I concluded that it was not necessary to carry out an investigation of Ms Nolan's complaint. She was advised however that the circumstances of her complaint would be reviewed in the light of whatever recommendations I might make as a result of the investigation.

I should point out that complaints and disputes relating to occupational pension schemes are now subject to investigation by the Pensions Ombudsman, Mr Paul Kenny, who was appointed on 28 April 2003 under the Pensions Act, 1990, as amended by the Pensions (Amendment) Act, 2002. The commencement of this investigation predated the appointment of the Pensions Ombudsman.

. * this name has also been changed to protect the identity of the complainant.

Back to contents