Report from the Partnership Committee following its meeting held on 30 October 2003

Main Discussion Points

Minutes of the last meeting
Minutes of the last meeting were agreed.

Matters arising from minutes of last meeting
There were no matters arising

Draft Action Plan
The revised action plan was agreed and signed off. MF to send it to the PVG tomorrow.

Responding to a question MF told the Committee that the members of the PVG for the Education Sector consisted of Prof McGuinness, TCD, along with members of INTO, TUI and SIPTU. The PVG is also made up of independent nominees.

Any Other Business
The Skillnet Annual Conference is scheduled for the 27 November 2003. MF stressed the importance of attending the event and proposed that both sides, management and union, are represented. An email inviting members will be circulated.

There is one Skillnet training day, out of the initial four, remaining. The Library have utilised two and NVRL one.

JD reminded the Committee that he wishes to discuss the issue of the Creche at the next meeting.

Pension Trust
GH introduced and thanked the Bursar and Alan Broxham for attending the Partnership Committee. GH stepped down as Chair due to having a particular interest in the topic. GD to Chair for the remainder of the meeting.

AB explained that a proposal to establish a Pension Trust has been made to take charge of the University's pension fund. This is currently undertaken by the Finance Committee. The objective of a Trust is to have a separate legal entity controlling the pension fund in order to divorce the University of the Fund.  Presently, employee contributions end up as an asset of the University. However, establishing a Pension Trust in the University does not have the same benefits as it would in a private sector organisation. The University is unlikely to go out of business, and it is written into the Statute that the University guarantees every pension. The reason for introducing a Pension Trust in UCD is for the purpose of following best practice in relation to an organisation's pension fund.

EC explained that it is general and best practice to have a Pension Trust. The benefit is that representatives from both the employers and the employees make up the Trust. Currently, a major interest group is not represented. These are the Pensioners. The Trust would have representation from the Finance Committee, current employees and the pensioners. The managers of the Fund would not alter.

It was made clear that if any group within the University feels that implementation of a Trust will have negative consequences for themselves or the University then the Pension Trust will not be implemented. The Trust will not impact on the pension fund itself, and it was stressed that it is not being proposed due to concerns with the pension fund. The fund is in surplus. The only difference would be that the University would be implementing best practice by having representation from all interested parties.

To introduce the Trust Statute 96 requires amendment. This Statute includes a clause on PRSI. This has not been amended to cover the integration issue over the A1 and DI stamps. The Universities Act, 1997 requires this change. Hence, this is a more urgent matter and will require amendment as soon as possible and prior to the introduction of a Trust.

GH pointed out that there will be issues in relation to the interim period (1995-1997), between the implementation of the different PRSI stamps and the implementation of the Act. He also explained that there are negative feelings pertaining to the idea of the Pension Trust. A discussion ensued, which included why change when the current system serves the University and employees well?

AB explained that having a Trust better quantifies how the monies are invested.  The Statute does not do this. AB offered his time to explain and advise all interested groups within the University on the Pension Trust.

EC explained that the integration issue should go to the Governing Authority in December. GH reiterated that there will be questions surrounding this issue and that it should not be rushed through. It was decided that altering both sections of Statute 96 at the same time would be too confusing. Following from the above points, EC indicated that the Integration issue and the Pension Trust would go separately.

GH had questions pertaining to the integration issue. It was determined that this will be done at a later time when Margaret Ramsay is available to meet and discuss.