Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88309 Case Number: LCR11892 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NILANDS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately 12 workers for an increase in their rates of pay, travelling allowance and meal allowance under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and recommends acceptance of the Company's package of
proposals amended to provide that the meal allowances should be
increased to £7 as from 1st June, 1988 and thereafter by the
increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88309 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NILANDS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 12 workers for an increase in
their rates of pay, travelling allowance and meal allowance under
the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The previous wage round expired on the 31st November, 1987.
The Company offered the Union a wage increase in line with the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery, as from the 1st
December, 1987. The Company also indicated that:-
(1) The clothing allowance would be adjusted in line
with the Consumer Price Index, and would be payable
as from 1st November.
(2) The drivers allowance in respect of the Dublin run
to be increased by £1 to £21.
(3) Meal allowance would be adjusted from 1st June by
3.2% and in each of the two subsequent years, to be
adjusted similarly in line with the Consumer Price
Index increase.
In accordance with the Programme for National Recovery, no further
claims of a cost increasing nature will be made on the employer
for the duration of the agreement. While the Union membership
accepted most of the proposals, the package was rejected
specifically because of the Company's proposal which related to
meal allowances for road staff. The dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 7th March, 1988. A
conciliation conference took place on 12th April, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The matter was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the
26th April, 1988 and the hearing took place on the 24th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's original claim to the Company was for a pay
adjustment in excess of the terms contained in the Programme
for National Recovery. However agreement was reached with the
Company, involving the withdrawal by the Union of some of its
claims.
2. The only claim which is outstanding relates to road staff,
and is for an increase in the meal allowance to £7.00 per day.
The Union argues that there is a relativity between the road
staff and the commercial travellers (details supplied to the
Court). The Company, through negotiation has increased the
sales representatives allowance to £7.00, and the allowance
currently stands at this, and is due to be reviewed shortly.
3. At the Labour Court hearing on the 6th May, 1987 the main
argument was that there was a relativity between the road
staff and the commercial travellers, and the fact that the
Court recommended concession of the Union's claim then upholds
the view that a relativity existed. As there are under 12
people in the Company affected by this claim the total cost
per annum would be substantially less than £1,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's consolidated allowance of £6.50 is more
favourable than competitors' allowances. The allowance was
formerly a lunch and tea allowance. The tea allowance was
only payable if the driver stayed out beyond a certain time,
and this feature of the scheme is common to all the Company's
competitors even at this time. Some years ago the Company
moved away from this traditional system to a consolidated
allowance. This is to cover lunch and tea but is payable even
if the driver does not stay out beyond normal working hours.
2. Given the favourable level of the current allowance the
Company considers that its proposal to link allowances in
future with the rise in the Consumer Price Index is very
reasonable and it would ask the Court to apply this link at
least for the duration of this agreement.
3. The Union have argued that the driver allowance has been
traditionally linked with the allowance provided to sales
representatives. The Company does not accept this argument.
A number of points are relevant here:-
(a) The allowance provided to sales representatives
of £7.00 is a lunch allowance and it does not
relate to any evening meals which might be
necessary.
(b) No other Company has a link between the
allowance provided to sales representatives and
to drivers and in all cases we are aware of the
allowance provided to sales representatives is
considerably higher than the drivers'
allowance.
(c) The Company has, over the past number of wage
rounds spent a lot of time arguing over this
lunch and tea allowance. It has been the
subject of dispute during that period.
4. The Company has been very reasonable in the past in its
approach to this whole issue and management has reluctantly
conceded the Union's claims over the past number of years. At
this stage, however, it is determined that it must be in the
same position as its competitors, and it has made clear during
negotiations that it is prepared to consider the system of
lunch and tea allowances or alternatively a system of receipts
to operate in respect of lunch and tea.
5. The Company would ask the Court to take cognisance of the
fact that as part of the wage round discussions the Company
did agree to increase the Dublin run allowance by £1.00. This
was regarded as a significant concession which would make up
for any perceived grievance on the part of the drivers, should
the Company not concede their claim on the meal allowance
issue. Therefore, in the Company's view this proposal is
linked directly to the meal allowance issue.
6. In view of the foregoing, the Company would contend that
its approach to the problem has been eminently reasonable and
that the Union's refusal to budge on this issue is not
sustainable, given the competitive situation, and the fact
that their claim is unique to Nilands Limited.