LETTER: Pension concerns for retired Mayo An Post employees outlined

Sir,

I AM writing on behalf of a group of retired An Post employees (Post Office Pensioners United – POPU) who have been severely impacted by pension policies that appear to contravene statutory protections.

We believe there is a significant public interest in investigating An Post’s handling of pension increases, its financial position, and the role of the government in overseeing its obligations to pensioners.

Since 2013, pension increases for former An Post employees have been capped at a maximum of 2%, despite rising inflation and the increasing cost of living.

Many of us, as former civil servants, do not qualify for the state pension scheme or additional government support that other retirees receive.

The Programme for Government promises ‘to strengthen the net for older citizens improving their quality of life and promoting dignity and independence in later years and to examine what modifications or changes may be made to support women who currently fall outside the existing schemes to qualify for state pensions’.

By allowing An Post to continue to cap pension increases indefinitely, I regret to say that we believe these stated aims are being ignored and that An Post pensioners are being forgotten.

Our pensions are explicitly protected under Section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, which states that pension disbursements ‘shall not be on less favourable conditions than would apply if the benefits referred to had continued to be paid out of monies provided by the Oireachtas’.

This statutory commitment was reaffirmed by ministers in the Dáil and in official industrial relations agreements.

However, in 2008, the government removed An Post’s exemption from the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding Standard) Regulations, leading to the so-called ‘Pension Accord’ between An Post and the Communications Workers Union (CWU). This agreement imposed a hard cap on pension increases at 2% or below – a decision that effectively abolished pay parity between retirees and current employees, despite decades of precedent.

This policy is particularly troubling given that inflation since 2012 has been 24.4% while An Post pensions have risen by only 15.2%.

An Post’s modified PRSI status (granted by the Department of Social Welfare) has saved the company an estimated €400 million in employer PRSI contributions while simultaneously disqualifying pensioners from receiving the contributory State pension, which has resulted in An Post pensioners being ineligible for cost-of-living support measures, such as double-week payments, etc.

An Post management claims it cannot afford to fully fund pension increases, yet Kieran Mulvey, the new chair of An Post, told the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications (October 16, 2024) that the pension scheme is ‘in rude good health’, with a €600 million surplus.

An Post reduced its annual contribution to the pension fund from 14.4% to 8% in 2022. The Communications Workers Union claims to have negotiated pensionable pay increases of 12.5% since 2022, but the real figure is only 10%, well below inflation.

Rule 13 of the An Post Pension Scheme states that pension increases must be authorised by ministers in line with public service pension policy.

Yet, since 2008, An Post and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) have interpreted Rule 13 as granting An Post full discretion over increases.

Legal precedent suggests this is an abuse of discretion, as a decision-maker’s authority must be exercised honestly, in good faith, and without arbitrariness.

A letter from assistant secretary Jasmina Behan (DPER, September 24, 2024) confirms that ‘Pay Parity’ remains the official public service pension policy under the Public Service Agreement 2024-2026.

Despite this, An Post has not restored parity for pensioners in what appears to be a violation of its statutory obligations under the 1983 Act.

We believe this issue deserves urgent scrutiny from investigative journalists. Key questions that demand answers include: Why is An Post refusing to apply public service pension policy when the pension scheme is in surplus?

What has happened to the €400 million in PRSI savings that An Post accrued at pensioners’ expense?

Why has the government allowed An Post to unilaterally cap pension increases, contradicting legal protections in the 1983 Act? Is the CWU truly representing pensioners’ interests, given its role in the 2008 Accord?

Has An Post complied with ministerial authorisations on pension increases, as required under Rule 13?

Retired An Post workers, who dedicated our careers to public service, should not be left on or below the poverty line.

We appeal to you and your publication to highlight the full financial picture behind An Post’s decisions and ensure that pensioners receive the fair treatment we believe we are legally entitled to.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Moreland

Leader,

POPU.