LCR10786

Subject:
Claim, on behalf of one worker, for the provision of a company car.

Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the allocation of cars or car
allowances in the Company is determined in a rather haphazard way.
The Court also considers that the claimant has been discriminated
against in as much as his peers enjoy this facility and the Court
therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD86665 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10786
27011 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10786

PARTIES: CALOR KOSANGAS LIMITED

and

AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (A.C.T.S.S.)



Subject:

1. Claim, on behalf of one worker, for the provision of a company
car.

Background:

2. The claim concerns a worker employed by the Company as
Industrial Sales Administration Manager in its Commercial
Department. The Union claims that the worker should be provided
with a Company car or a car allowance. The Company rejects the
claim.

3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and in
April, 1985 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 10th May,
1985, and 1st June, 1986. However no agreement was reached and on
18th August, 1986, the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 29th September, 1986.

Union's arguments:

4. (i) The Union is seeking equal treatment for the worker
with his managerial colleagues in respect of the
provision of a company car or a car allowance. A
comparison of the worker's position with that of his
colleagues shows that the Company is discriminating
against the worker. The worker is the only manager in
his peer group who does not have a Company car or car
allowance (details supplied to the Court).

(ii) The Company has not been able to give a valid reason
for not treating him in the same way as his
colleagues.

(iii) The provision of a company car is not conditional on
the amount of travelling required by the job and can
be regarded as a perk.

(iv) All of the managers, who receive a car allowance, did
not get it purely at the Company's discretion. Some
had to pursue claims in the same manner as the present
claim.

Company's arguments:

5. (a) The provision of a company car or car allowance to
workers is of a concessionary nature and is at senior
management's discretion. Management has never
regarded any concessions in that area as an automatic
entitlement. This policy was never a negotiable one.

(b) Cars or car allowances are allocated on the basis of a
number of factors including the necessity of a car for
the work involved. The worker does not need a car to
do his work.

(c) Where the provision of a car was a condition of entry
or if a car had traditionally been associated with a
job then a car or allowance would be provided.
Neither of those conditions apply in this case.

RECOMMENDATION:

6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the allocation of cars or car
allowances in the Company is determined in a rather haphazard way.
The Court also considers that the claimant has been discriminated
against in as much as his peers enjoy this facility and the Court
therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


5th November, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P.W. Deputy Chairman