Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86474 Case Number: LCR10741 Section / Act: S67 Parties: U.C.D. - and - N.U.W.W.M. |
Claim on behalf of eight maintenance craftsmen for (i) payment of bus fares and (ii) payment of eating-on-site allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that the concession of a meal
allowance and bus fares to one group of employees as a result of
an agreement is conclusive reason of itself for extending such
payments to other employees.
The Court having considered the submissions from both parties is
not satisfied on the evidence presented to it that the workers
herein concerned are required to carry out their duties in
circumstances other than those which apply to plumbers and general
workers. The Court notes that a similar claim for both these
groups has been the subject of Labour Court recommendation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim
for eating-on-site allowance.
The Court further finds no basis for recommending the payment of
bus fares and therefore does not recommend concession of the
claim.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86474 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10741
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10741
Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
NATIONAL UNION OF WOODCUTTERS AND WOODCUTTING MACHINISTS
IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS' AND DECORATORS' TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of eight maintenance craftsmen for (i) payment
of bus fares and (ii) payment of eating-on-site allowance.
Background:
2. Electricians in the College are paid an eating-on-site
allowance and also receive bus fares. The Unions, in early 1986,
served a claim on the College for application of both these
payments to carpenters and painters. The College rejected the
claim and the matter was referred to conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 21st February, 1986. A conciliation conference
held on 9th May, 1986 did not resolve the matter and it was
referred to a full hearing of the Court. The hearing took place
on 18th September, 1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) The Unions consider that all craftsmen employed by the
College should be treated equally. For this reason
bus fares and meal allowances paid to electricians in
the College should also apply to carpenters and
painters. The cost is equal in the two cases and the
work carried out by the two groups of workers is
similar, in that both are employed as maintenance
craftsmen in the College.
(ii) There is equal treatment of craftsmen in other
employments and this position has been upheld by the
Labour Court, for example in Recommendation No. 6364,
which applied to workers in the same sector of the
economy.
(iii) Since the workers concerned have only a half hour
lunch break it is not possible for them to make use of
the College facilities because of the need to queue
for meals. If the lunch break were to be extended the
workers should be given the option of a payment of
#1.13 per day and a continuation of normal working
hours or to avail of the extended lunch break.
College's arguments:
4. (a) The electricians have negotiated with the College
separately from the other maintenance unions and their
conditions differ from the carpenters and painters in
a few areas. The carpenters, painters and
electricians have not had relativity in the past and
the College considers that the fact that the
electricians have an eating-on-site allowance does not
justify its extension to the carpenters and painters.
Similar claims for eating-on-site allowances have been
rejected by the Labour Court.
(b) The College is concerned that concession of these
claims would lead to consequential claims by other
groups of workers for similar allowances.
(c) In the past carpenters' and painters' wage scales were
related to those paid by the Construction Industry
Federation and travelling allowance was also paid on
the same basis. Subsequently, as a result of
negotiations between the College and the unions, their
wage scales were changed to coincide with that which
applied in Dublin Corporation and a travelling time
payment of one hour per day was substituted for the
allowance previously paid. So far as the College is
aware bus fares are not paid to painters and
carpenters employed by the Corporation in respect of
travelling between their home and work place.
It is is not normal practice to pay workers such
fares, in the opinion of the College.
(d) Bus fares are paid to electricians and plumbers
employed by the College in accordance with the terms
of separate agreements made with their unions. In
recent years the electricians and plumbers unions have
negotiated separately on behalf of their members and
the carpenters and painters have no relativity with
them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that the concession of a meal
allowance and bus fares to one group of employees as a result of
an agreement is conclusive reason of itself for extending such
payments to other employees.
The Court having considered the submissions from both parties is
not satisfied on the evidence presented to it that the workers
herein concerned are required to carry out their duties in
circumstances other than those which apply to plumbers and general
workers. The Court notes that a similar claim for both these
groups has been the subject of Labour Court recommendation.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim
for eating-on-site allowance.
The Court further finds no basis for recommending the payment of
bus fares and therefore does not recommend concession of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
________________________________
10th October, 1986. Evelyn Owens,
A. K. / J. C. Deputy Chairman.