ILA, in response to that concern, said its entire business in the industrial fund was being transferred to RLA. In return, RLA had agreed to pay €23.5 million for infrastructure and operating assets and a further payment for other assets of the business of about €150 million.
A "real sense" of grievance" among some long-serving employees of Irish Life Assurance plc (ILA) about the consequences for them of the proposed transfer of the company's assurance business to Royal Liver Assurance Ltd (RLA) was "all the more telling" for the restrained manner in which those workers expressed their concerns, a High Court judge said yesterday.
Mr Justice Kearns said that, in some instances, employees had endured muggings and violent assaults in their collecting duties with Irish Life "only to find they were being confronted with unpalatable choices with, as they saw it, very little time or information in which to make an informed decision as to their future".
However, the judge said, while it was only natural to feel some sympathy for the employees, he must conclude no sufficient objection had been made to warrant the court withholding approval for the transfer.
The statutory framework for the transfer of assurance business only required consultation with policyholders and other persons whom the court considered entitled to be heard.
Having regard to the report of an independent actuary, he found that concerns expressed that policyholders would lose out as a result of the transfer had been "fully addressed" by Irish Life.
Mr Justice Kearns was giving judgment granting ILA's application for approval of the proposed transfer, for which the effective date was yesterday. Several employees had objected to the transfer.
After the judgment, Mr Donal O Laoire, who represented three employees, applied for his costs. Mr Brian Murray, for ILA, said the company was prepared to make a contribution to the costs but was resisting an order.
The judge said he found the concerns raised by the employees very useful and said he would deal with the matter later.
One worker thanked the judge for the "sympathetic" hearing. The judge commended the employees for the restrained manner in which they had outlined their concerns.
In his 34-page decision, the judge noted that, as of December 31st, 2000, Irish Life had 639,222 contracts in force in its industrial branch fund which had assets, net of liabilities, worth €494.5 million (£389 million).
An independent actuary had concluded the transfer would not have any material effect on the security of the transferring policyholders of ILA or the current policyholders of RLA.
He found all the statutory and technical requirements for the transfer, including notice, advertising and transmission requirements, had been met.
Dealing with the objections, the judge said no objection of substance had been raised by policyholders, other than concerns by two persons who suggested policyholders were losing out. This was based on ILA's statement that the net value of the industrial branch fund was €494.5 million and RLA's statement that the transfer would add only €300 million to its assets under management.
ILA said those monies would be used to replace solvency support for the remaining life assurance business provided by the Irish Life Industrial Assurance Fund which would otherwise have continued to be provided by that fund. The €300 million sum referred to by RLA reflected its calculations as to the net increase in assets it would hold after the transfer.
The judge said he was satisfied, having regard to the report of the independent actuary, that the concerns expressed regarding the fund had been fully addressed.
On the objections of employees, the judge noted, under Irish law, employees have no statutorily defined right to be heard on a petition for approval of transfer of business.
However, there was an identifiable procedure to protect employees in the context of any transfer of business set out in the EC (Safeguarding of Employees Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 1980. It was not a requirement of the Regulations that negotiations should be held on the working conditions of each and every employee affected by the transfer, and any concerns resolved.
Neither could the High Court be the adjudicator or arbitrator of ongoing grievances or disputes between management and staff arising from likely changes in work conditions in the context of a transfer, the judge added. The Regulations envisaged transfers may involve changes in the workplace, up to and including dismissals, and did not prohibit dismissals. He was satisfied Irish Life had broadly complied with the Regulations.
