Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8759 Case Number: LCR11076 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART&DESIGN - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of four general operatives for the payment of meal and travel allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8759 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11076
CC861674/ INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
CC861715 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11076
Parties: NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of four general operatives for the payment of
meal and travel allowance.
Background:
2. The workers concerned established a relationship in respect
of pay only with similar workers in the City of Dublin Vocational
Education Committees (C.D.V.E.C.) in 1983. Up to that time they
had a pay relationship with general operatives in the National
Museum. The current pay scale of general operatives in the
College is #137.78 X (13) - #148.08 per week. All four workers
concerned in this claim are on the maximum point of the scale.
3. At present the workers concerned are not in receipt of a meal
and travel allowance. In September, 1986 the Union, on behalf of
these workers, served a claim on the College for the payment to
them of the meal and travel allowances paid to general operatives
in the C.D.V.E.C. The allowances in question amount to 1/8 of
basic pay per week for travel and #5.65 per week (#1.13 per day)
in respect of meals. The College rejected the claim and as no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred,
on 8th October, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference, held on 16th December, 1986,
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 26th January, 1987 for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 2nd March,
1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The conclusions of a survey carried out by the
Institute of Public Administration (copy supplied to
the Court) at the request of the College, on a
comparison of the general conditions of employment of
two general operatives in the College with their V.E.C.
related grades, include the following:
"In comparing the general conditions of employment of
N.C.A.D. and V.E.C. General Operatives, there are many
similarities. Job Profiles, Supervisor Arrangements,
Numbers of Hours worked, Leave Allowances,
Superannuation and Basic Remuneration (at the max of
the scale) are very similar."
"Through the mechanism of the broken time arrangements
and the meal and travel allowance, V.E.C. Personnel
have better terms and conditions."
"Taking all environmental factors into account, the
overall conclusion - comparing like with like (N.C.A.D.
General Operatives and V.E.C. General Operatives
working ordinary time) in respect of terms and
conditions of employment - is that N.C.A.D. Staff
conditions are not uncompetitive across the board
except in respect of the travel allowance, which
substantially improves the V.E.C. General Operatives
remuneration."
In the light of these conclusions no valid reasons
exist why meal and travel allowances similar to those
paid to general operatives in the C.D.V.E.C. should not
be applied to the workers concerned in this claim.
College's arguments:
4. (a) The relationship that exists between the general
operatives in the College and those in the C.D.V.E.C.
is in respect of basic pay only and does not include
general terms and conditions of employment.
(b) The Court has already rejected a similar claim on
behalf of the workers concerned in a previous
recommendation (Labour Court Recommendation No. 7746
refers).
(c) Travelling allowances normally apply in situations
where a high degree of mobility is a feature of the
conditions of employment. Very little travel is
associated with the duties of the workers concerned
(details supplied to the Court).
(d) Meal allowances are meant to compensate personnel for
working on site situations where access to
canteens/meal preparation facilities are rudimentary or
non-existent. The workers concerned do not work on
site situations and have canteen facilities/snack
preparation facilities available. The workers
concerned can also avail of the main College canteen
facility.
(e) In all the circumstances, the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
24th March, 1987
T.McC./J.C.