• 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

5. Findings

5.1 I find that, in failing to have put in place appropriate administrative arrangements to enable relevant officers to make the necessary payments in respect of superannuation contributions due on qualifying previous service, the Mid-Western Health Board had acted in a manner which adversely affected the complainants and which was contrary to sound administration. This finding is supported by the following conclusions:

(a) the Board had sufficient time to put the appropriate arrangements in place:

- even before the issue of Circular Letters S 1/97 (31 January 1997) and S 7/97 (13 May 1997) the Department of the Environment and Local Government had held regional superannuation seminars attended by health area pensions practitioners during which the issue as to how the contribution liability in respect of temporary whole time and part-time service should be calculated was addressed;

- Circular Letters 1/97 and S 7/97 clearly stated that contributions for previous service should be levied on uprated salaries. They clarified that this meant the rate of remuneration the person is in receipt of at the date of payment of the contributions and clearly stated that contributions liability would increase in line with increases in the officer's pay:

(b) The Board's internal communications were deficient in relation to the appointment of new officers:

- in this regard the key documentation relating to the appointment of these two officers - the Permanent Appointment Order - which, following signature by the Personnel Officer, is copied to, among others, the Payroll Supervisor, Department Head/ Local Administrator and the Superannuation Officer - was signed long after appointments were actually made ( 17 months in the case of Ms O'Sullivan and almost 18 months in the case of Ms Dillon).

(c) The system eventually put in place by the Board to enable officers to commence contributions in advance of a determination of their exact liability was of no benefit to them and was not provided for under the Local Government Superannuation Scheme. When an alternative was suggested by the Department of the Environment & Local Government in August 2003, the Board did not act upon the suggestion.

5.2 I find that the actions of the Board in respect of the two complainants resulted in their being treated in a manner which was both unfair and unreasonable and as a consequence both incurred financial losses through no fault of their own.

5.3 I find that both complainants were required to pay additional amounts of superannuation arrears as a direct consequence of the inaction of the Board.

Back to contents